Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Casino Capitalism Bulletin, 2020

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jan 01, 2020] Protocols of the Elders of White Christendom by changing the dominant identity). The key idea, is that well-off, white, Christian men are being oppressed by virtue of challenges to their natural position of dominance, and rejection of their natural expectation of deference .

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

The central claim is also addressed to white Christian women, particularly married women, who are assumed to identify their interests with those of their families.

Gorgonzola Petrovna 12.31.19 at 3:35 pm ( 18 )

Ha-ha. Protocols of the Elders of White Christendom.

[Jan 01, 2020] We Were Warned About The Deep State, But Refused To Listen

Jan 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

I am talking about the surveillance state that the American electorate has ignorantly accepted as necessary in order to keep us safe from terrorists.

Despite previous warning from whistleblowers like Russ Tice, Bill Binney, Ed Loomis and Kird Wiebe, no action to rein in the surveillance monster was taken until Edward Snowden absconded with the documents exposing the vast amount spying that the U.S. Government is doing to its own citizens. But even those weak efforts to supposedly rein in the NSA proved to be nothing more than mere window dressing.

The spying got worse. Just ask Donald Trump and the members of his campaign that were targeted first by the CIA and NSA and then by the FBI. Fundamental civil rights were trampled.

The real irony in all of this is that Barack Obama, as President, took credit for helping revise the laws in order to prevent the spying exposed by Edward Snowden. But under the Obama Administration, spying on political opponents--both real and perceived--escalated. We know for a fact that journalists, such as James Rosen and Sheryl Atkinson, were targets and their communications and computers attacked by the U.S. Government.

We know, thanks to a memo released by Judge Rosemary Collyer, that "FBI consultants" were making illegal searches of NSA material using the names of Donald Trump, his family and members of his campaign staff.

Some of this NSA material came courtesy of the Brits and their collection on U.S. targets. Some of this material came from the NSA's own collection and storage of all electronic communications and was obtained using a nifty NSA tool called XKEYSCORE. Listen to Ed Snowden's description. Also, take time to appreciate the irony that CNN and other journalists were actually trying to report real news. Now they are full blown apologists for the abuse of the intelligence collection tools.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/HIsc6DqlMy0

Six years ago, former NSA Technical Director for Military and Geopolitical Issues, Bill Binney, and Russ Tice, a former NSA analyst, appeared on the PBS News Hour. Once again, they make very clear the enormous nature to the threat to our civil liberties.

Too bad Donald Trump did not listen to their warning.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/GJS7F-mShpI

Given the robust, wide ranging ability of the NSA to probe all communications by any person in the United States, it is remarkable that no real dirt on Donald Trump was ever uncovered. Had such information existed, it would be in the NSA's storage vaults in Utah and crooked CIA analysts under Brennan's direction would have found it and used it. But that did not happed. The best the intel folks could fabricate were the salacious claims attributed to reports ostensibly created by former British spy, Christopher Steele. Turns out that the titillating account that Trump hired hookers to perform coprophilia (could of been worse, coprophagia) was nothing more than idle bar talk.

What has happened to Donald Trump can happen to any of us. It is time to take this threat seriously and put the intel agencies back into a properly monitored corral. Otherwise, we will lose this Republic.

[Jan 01, 2020] The "neoliberalism is fascism" faction seems to become stronger these days

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

bianca steele 12.31.19 at 10:57 pm ( 24 )

EB's second paragraph @18 is very clear, I think, about the stakes for one of the more important issues facing liberals / Democrats in the US. Is the party organized around protecting women, LBGT individuals, and religious and ethnic minorities from theocrats who want to tear down Constitutional and statutory civil rights, or is it organized around working people who may have a stake in a less secular, less socially progressive future, but will support a strong government if it supports ordinary working families who belong to the dominant culture?

The "liberalism is fascism; only anarchism is properly socialist" faction seems as strong as ever, though these days, it seems possible to add a third clause, "big government is good," to the list, to listen to some people.

It's almost as if what they really mean is "all governments are the same, but don't boss *me* around."

[Jan 01, 2020] Capitalist economic activity can operate effectively under both centrist and hard-right ideologies, the relation of Liberalism (including "conservatism") and Fascism is along a continuum and the first can readily morph into the second.

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

rivelle 12.31.19 at 11:33 am

JQ is right to emphasize the similarities and continuities between the identity politics of the liberal and rightist varieties. They exist along a continuum and easily located within the ideological cultural and civilizational symbolic of Western capitalist polities. Understood as a power-elite *ruling ideology*, this is what is properly described as "Liberalism". (In contrast, superficial electoral politics and journalism are merely epiphenomenal when they seek to pigeon-hole parties, politicians and policies into granular categories of "left", "center", "right".)

For reasons similar to those outlined above, Corey Robin and Slavoj Zizek have rejected labelling Trump a "fascist", especially when this label comes from political centrists – DNC Democrats; "bourgeois liberals" etc. Robin and Zizek emphasize the manner in which Trump is simply capitalist business as usual. And since the start of the Trump admin., Robin also has noted the many political weaknesses of Trump and the GOP, over and above Trump's neophyte incompetence and vainglorious stupidity.

See here, for example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/02/american-institutions-wont-keep-you-safe-trumps-excesses
The problem with Robin's and Zizek's positions though, Fascism is just as much capitalist business as usual. Capitalist economic activity can operate effectively under both centrist and hard-right ideologies, the relation of Liberalism (including "conservatism") and Fascism is along a continuum and the first can readily morph into the second.

(cont. in next post)


rivelle 12.31.19 at 11:33 am ( 9 )

Two recent books describe the inter-relationship between Liberalism and Fascism as capitalist ruling ideologies.

Domenico Losurdo – Liberalism: A Counter-History.

Ishay Landa – The Apprentice's Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism

A review of Losurdo's book on Amazon provides a good summary of its thesis.

"1. Liberalism does not expand the boundaries of freedom in an organic dialectical process. Liberalism has undergone profound changes in its history, but not because of any sort of internal tendency towards progress. The expanders of liberty have been rebellious slaves, socialists, organized workers, anti-colonial nationalists, and other forces outside of the Community of the Free. Generally, the Community of the Free only grants accessions when faced with powerful opposition from outside its walls.
2. Ideologies such as white supremacy, social Darwinism, and colonialism were created by liberals as a means of defending the liberty of the Community of the Free. When the American Founding Fathers rebelled against Britain, one of their most commonly stated reasons for doing so was that the British government didn't respect the freedom Americans had imbibed through their Northern European blood. The Framers saw themselves as the preservers of the freedoms of the Glorious Revolution, a revolution based on the right of freedom-worthy peoples to dominate the supposedly insipid masses. They were explicit in this respect, and the later history of liberalism continued to attest to this tendency.
3. Liberalism contains within itself the semi-hidden corollary that human behavior must be strictly regulated in order for freedom to be maintained. In liberalism, individuals have the freedom to compete with one another and rise to the top based on merit. Liberal elites have often interpreted this as proof that those at the top of the social ladder deserve their place. The other conclusion that stems from this is that criminals, the uneducated, the poor, and non-Western cultures fully deserve their servile status. If nature wanted them to be part of the Community of the Free, so goes the logic, then it would allow them to participate in liberty. Therefore, the dominated peoples of the world must hold their position due to their own internal defects. For Losurdo, this belief is what defines liberalism and separates it from radicalism.
4. In liberalism, liberty has historically been seen as a trait that people possess, one granted by nature. Thus, liberalism easily justifies its tendencies towards inequality by devising various ways of explaining why nature simply doesn't grant some people the liberty it grants others. Meanwhile, radicalism sees the establishment of liberty as an active process. Interestingly, this indicates that negative liberty possesses a magnetism towards authoritarianism. Losrudo points out that during the early days of Fascism, many liberals in the U.S. and Western Europe such as von Mises, Croce, and the Italian liberal establishment saw Mussolini's regime as a possible defender of classical liberalism and liberty as it was understood by the Anglo-Saxon theorists of liberalism.

This book is as disturbing as it is insightful. I personally see it as self-evident that many of the authoritarian tendencies that Losurdo identifies have made a comeback with a vengeance in the neo-liberal era, and have strengthened since the start of the Great Financial Crisis. Modern liberals, especially in American academia, often assure themselves that liberalism will not tolerate any serious regresses into authoritarianism, because of the myth of the dialectical process I described at the beginning of this review. I even believed in this to some extent, and if I remember correctly, I recall Slavoj Zizek of all people praising liberalism for this reason. Fortunately, Losurdo has seriously damaged my faith in this tendency in liberalism. Again, I don't even consider myself to be a liberal, I identify as a Leftist (one of the radicals Losurdo describes). Perhaps it speaks to the pervasiveness of the comforting nature of liberalism's self image that even its critics unknowingly take refuge in it."

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/178168166X/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_cmps_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

rivelle 12.31.19 at 11:34 am ( 10 )
This is an excerpt of a review of Landa's book from Goodreads:

"The last 2 chapters are dedicated to attacking 4 liberal myths about fascism. 1) that it was "the tyranny of the majority" 2) that it was "collectivist" as compared to "individualist" liberalism 3) that the "big lie", the use of propaganda etc to cover the "truth", was unique to fascism/"totalitarianism" or started there 4) that fascism was an ultra-nationalist attack on liberal cosmopolitanism.

For 1, he focuses not so much on attacking the idea that fascists were a majority (he does do this, but the book isn't focused on this sort of thing which has been gone over before many times) but instead how many liberals believed in the tyranny of the majority *against property owners* and were perfectly willing to accept dictatorship to protect the elite minority from the dangers of a majority attacking their elite position – and that liberals were in fact key ideological supporters of the fascist dictatorship to protect the market against the attacks of socialism.

For 2, he points out first "it should be realized that terms such as "individualism" or "collectivism" are, in and of themselves, devoid of political meaning, whether radical or conservative, left or right, socialist or capitalist. It is only the historical content poured into such signifiers, that lends them their concrete ideological import." These terms aren't helpful or meaningful as ideals. Nevertheless, he points out how liberal defences of the individual actually often took place from the standpoint of a greater community or goal – he points out how Edmund Burke called society a "family" simply to defend that the elite patriarchs should be able to do whatever they want yet without any responsibility in return. The collective standpoint acts as a justification for inequalities – that allowing the elite to do what they want advances greater goals, like culture, the health of the race, the nation etc. Individualism was actually often a way of advancing socialist goals by pointing out that every human being deserves a certain quality of life and the elite don't deserve more.

For 3, he quotes liberal philosophers who believed in the dangers of democracy so talked about the need for elites to work behind the scenes so the masses believe they're in charge while really a small elite do everything. He quotes Leo Strauss extensively, which is kind of weird as he's "post-fascism", but it's valuable as a more developed example of exactly what other liberal philosophers wanted. It shows that "totalitarianism" isn't so obviously confined to non-liberal ideologies.

For 4, he points out how common ideas of the nation were for liberals – similar to 2 – as a justification for inequality, as a basis for wealth (Wealth of Nations for example), as a myth to rally the masses. Again, he's clear that nationalism isn't inherently "good" or "bad" – pointing to the way nowadays third world nationalism is a valuable force for liberation while liberal countries at capitalism's centre are stressing the opposite. He's saying that nationalism isn't a unique quality of fascism at all. He also quotes Hitler suggesting that if Germany isn't good enough to win its place at the forefront of countries, he doesn't care for it. He doesn't present it as if it counters the idea of nationalism in fascism but he points out that it suggests alternative priorities.

The epilogue focuses on one specific historian's (Michael Mann) ideas about how fascism wasn't able to take hold in north-west Europe because of their "strong liberal traditions". He points out first that there were serious differences in material conditions but also that British politicians, for example, were closely tied to fascism, regularly expressing admiration for it and supporting fascists abroad, while implementing "crypto-fascist" ideas at home. Fascism was also impossible without ideas from the UK and the US – eugenics ideas from there especially were very popular among fascists. The idea that it was "liberal traditions" that stopped it spreading is shown as, at best, incredibly naive."

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13237181

Hidari 12.31.19 at 11:44 am ( 11 )
I agree with '3': I also think that thinking about dictatorship makes us think that the threat is coming from a certain direction, which makes us unprepared if the threat comes from a completely different direction (think of this as being like an intellectual Maginot Line if you want). Things may change in 100 years time (they normally do!).

But it's clear that for the immediate future (by which I mean, roughly up until about 2050 or thereabouts) 'Old Skool' fascist dictatorships are simply a busted flush. Modi might praise Hitler and Bolsanaro might speak approvingly of the previous military dictatorships but even they (more or less) stick to democratic norms (elections etc.) although of course they try and undermine what one might term the 'true' spirit of democracy at every turn (the only place on Planet Earth which still habitually uses the 'dictatorship' mode of governance is the area round the Gulf, for very specific socio-cultural reasons).

If you are looking for previous analogues for what we are looking at in the future you might look at South Africa (which had elections but only for 'whites'), Mexico under the PRI, Japan under the LDP, etc. Even in the UK, which is nominally a 'real' democracy you have a situation (and have had since about 1950) in which, while elections are 'real' the Tories almost always win them, and after 1979, even when the opposition does win the election, it does not engage in any serious ideological opposition to the political philosophy of the Tories (the US is like this too, since roughly 1981).

At the moment at least, the Republicans in the US and the Tories in the UK are simply doubling down on gerrymandering, voter suppression, 'let them eat racism' type crackdowns on 'immigrants' to disguise (and create a 'reason' for) rising inequality, the blizzard of propaganda we call 'fake news' (which mainly, contrary to popular belief, comes from 'mainstream' media sources): and so far these techniques seem to be working. Outright dictatorship would create foreign policy problems (e.g. with the UN, the EU etc.) and there is little sign at the moment that the Right wants to go down that route, at least in the short term.

[Jan 01, 2020] On the question of revolutions and their significance (or lack thereof) see Immanuel Wallerstein and his school of World-Systems Analysis. Significant revolutions have long-lasting world-systemic effects and aftershocks

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

26

rivelle 01.01.20 at 1:49 am

LFC@16

>>>"Historically both options have been compatible with "liberalism," which is one reason why radical movements have in fact been able to achieve certain things, albeit not all they wanted, within 'liberal' or pluralistic polities."

>>>"it's fine to talk about different kinds of oppression as long as one also emphasizes a common underlying interest in opposing oligarchy."

Entrance of hitherto excluded groups, partial accession to the demands of political radicals, is only allowed insofar as it does not interfere with the smooth running of capitalist business as usual. Leading to what you call oligarchy being the last, common obstacle and political opponent. But victory here is impossible unless radical political movements work with a futurist political programme that strives to lay the foundations for the post-systemic, post-capitalist world system or systems.

A historical example of capitalist colonialism returning to business as usual is the Haitian Revolution in which the victors of the conflict were still forced into paying reparations to the losers of the conflict.

However the ideological effects of the Haitian Revolution must also be taken into account. The resonance of this historical event extended as far as into the writings of Hegel (master-slave dialectic) as Susan Buck-Morss describes here:

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=98B8A1E2B90F3AFCFC45BE08C6431E94

On the question of revolutions and their significance (or lack thereof) see Immanuel Wallerstein and his school of World-Systems Analysis. Significant revolutions have long-lasting world-systemic effects and aftershocks. They cement into place secular trends of disequilibrium that disrupt the smooth operations of the capitalist world-system. Efforts to contain these secular trends of disequilibrium fail to return the capitalist world-system to its modes of functioning prior to the disruptive revolution. Instead, secular trends of disequilibrium lead eventually to the capitalist world-system's terminal historical crisis.

A brief account of Wallerstein on revolution can be found here:

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=812E803C89797CAA485A501D86565D25
A short summary of Wallerstein on the life and terminal historical crisis of the world system can be found here:
https://monthlyreview.org/2011/03/01/structural-crisis-in-the-world-system/

[Jan 01, 2020] Bernie Could Win the Nomination

Notable quotes:
"... For corporate Democrats and their profuse media allies, the approach of disparaging and minimizing Bernie Sanders in 2019 didn't work. In 2020, the next step will be to trash him with a vast array of full-bore attacks. ..."
"... When the Bernie campaign wasn't being ignored by corporate media during 2019, innuendos and mud often flew in his direction. But we ain't seen nothing yet. ..."
Dec 29, 2019 | www.truthdig.com

A central premise of conventional media wisdom has collapsed. On Thursday, both the New York Times and Politico published major articles reporting that Bernie Sanders really could win the Democratic presidential nomination. Such acknowledgments will add to the momentum of the Bernie 2020 campaign as the new year begins -- but they foreshadow a massive escalation of anti-Sanders misinformation and invective.

Throughout 2019, corporate media routinely asserted that the Sanders campaign had little chance of winning the nomination. As is so often the case, journalists were echoing each other more than paying attention to grassroots realities. But now, polling numbers and other indicators on the ground are finally sparking very different headlines from the media establishment.

From the Times : " Why Bernie Sanders Is Tough to Beat ." From Politico : " Democratic Insiders: Bernie Could Win the Nomination ."

Those stories, and others likely to follow in copycat news outlets, will heighten the energies of Sanders supporters and draw in many wavering voters. But the shift in media narratives about the Bernie campaign's chances will surely boost the decibels of alarm bells in elite circles where dousing the fires of progressive populism is a top priority.

For corporate Democrats and their profuse media allies, the approach of disparaging and minimizing Bernie Sanders in 2019 didn't work. In 2020, the next step will be to trash him with a vast array of full-bore attacks.

Along the way, the corporate media will occasionally give voice to some Sanders defenders and supporters. A few establishment Democrats will decide to make nice with him early in the year. But the overwhelming bulk of Sanders media coverage -- synced up with the likes of such prominent corporate flunkies as Rahm Emanuel and Neera Tanden as well as Wall Street Democrats accustomed to ruling the roost in the party -- will range from condescending to savage.

When the Bernie campaign wasn't being ignored by corporate media during 2019, innuendos and mud often flew in his direction. But we ain't seen nothing yet.

With so much at stake -- including the presidency and the top leadership of the Democratic Party -- no holds will be barred. For the forces of corporate greed and the military-industrial complex, it'll be all-out propaganda war on the Bernie campaign.

While reasons for pessimism are abundant, so are ample reasons to understand that a Sanders presidency is a real possibility . The last places we should look for political realism are corporate media outlets that distort options and encourage passivity.

Bernie is fond of quoting a statement from Nelson Mandela: "It always seems impossible until it is done."

From the grassroots, as 2020 gets underway, the solution should be clear: All left hands on deck.


Jan Goslinga • 38 minutes ago ,

Elections aren't real. Democrats will nominate Joe Biden to lose the election. Trump will remain as fascist strongman and the dems will continue to blame his neoconservative policies on his white trash constituency.

Bernie serves a few important functions.
1. he keeps the radicals from leaving the plantation and going 3rd party.
2. his promotion of progressive policies will make Biden less popular and help him lose to Trump
3. Bernie and his "socialism" can then be blamed for losing the election to Trump

Maxwell Jan Goslinga • 15 minutes ago ,

Unfortunately this comment will be buried in this monstrosity of a thread- now at over 300 comments with only about a third of them having a much relevance.

You might consider re-posting in reply to one of the foremost comments. Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the campaign hallucinations.

I've often wondered how it is people could believe the elections could have any positive and lasting impact on their lives if they have been through a couple of cycles. Do they not also wonder how it is that these election (marketing) campaigns now stretch out for well over a year nowadays demanding everyone's political attention, energy and resources. To say it is a colossal waste does not quite capture the enormity of the mind job being to people.

Mensch59 Maxwell • 8 minutes ago • edited ,

Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the campaign hallucinations.

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. You "realists" who are true believers that you have the Truth and have a calling to preach the Truth absolutely must stand against the unwashed masses who claim that your "reality" isn't even intersubjectively verifiable, much less dialectical & material [eta & historical ].

I quite enjoyed what SteelPirate/LaborSolidarity had to say about you attempting to gain a vanguard following by trolling lib-prog sites.

Mensch59 Jan Goslinga • 21 minutes ago ,

Elections aren't real.

Never pay attention to anyone who claims what's "real" and what isn't. Politics certainly doesn't exist in the realm of an objective, concrete, physical, naturalistic, materialistic reality which is shared by a consensus of rational observers. At best, politics deals with intersubjectively verifiable social phenomena. Thus, politics is mostly idealistic in the belief that each mind generates its own reality.

This realization is the topic of intersubjective verifiability, as recounted, for example, by Max Born (1949, 1965) Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance , who points out that all knowledge, including natural or social science, is also subjective. p. 162: "Thus it dawned upon me that fundamentally everything is subjective, everything without exception. That was a shock."
newestbeginning • 2 hours ago ,

Meanwhile the wealth of the world's top 500 grew 25% in 2019...

https://www.livemint.com/ne...

V4V • 2 hours ago • edited ,

Noam Chomsky on Bernie Sanders's Chances of Success- "...the chances he can be elected are pretty small." (Waiting with bated breath for copious downvotes by those who hate the truth and hate reality).

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FEpXJvWSa4FQ%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEpXJvWSa4FQ&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FEpXJvWSa4FQ%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

PGGreen V4V • 2 hours ago • edited ,

Most of who support Sanders know that his presidency will involve an uphill battle. Chomsky is being realistic.

But there really is no better option for meaningful change working within the political system than supporting Sanders. it is also important to note that "Our Revolution" has energized many young activists, encouraging them to continue the fight. This goes beyond politics to social and economic issues. If Sanders leaves us with a movement, this may turn out to be more important than the presidency in the long run.

Keep working for effective moral and economic justice and democracy!

V4V PGGreen • an hour ago ,

Well, I have said this several times, it's not the microscopic left that you need to convince, it's the majority of self-identifying Democrats not supporting Sanders that you need to convince. I am repelled by the Democratic Party, but there are millions who identify as Democrats and many are proud of it. You need to convince them, not us.

PGGreen V4V • 21 minutes ago • edited ,

Yes, although I don't think that those who support a Leftist agenda--whether you actually call them Leftists or not--are quite so microscopic a group as you imply. But you don't need to convince me or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect, or that it will be difficult for him to be elected president. We already know; we simply consider him the best option within this context of voting.

Have you ever thought of turning your approach to systemic commentary (which is valid and interesting, BTW, I'm not discounting it) around and saying what candidates you support-- in this context being discussed of voting-- instead of which ones you don't? And then explaining why such support would be effective?

I would say that what is wrong with the world is more a fault of the economic and political system than of Sanders alone--who not only plays small part in causing what is wrong, but a significant part in trying to correct it. Yes, he works within the system. That is a given. It may be, as Chris Hedges thinks, that there is no hope working within the system. But Noam Chomsky's approach also bears serious consideration that even Hedges doesn't discount. Voting will only be a small part of what brings about change, but it may make some slight difference--if you can stomach it. And it only takes a small amount of time.

"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

I don't see much of an argument that Sanders will be no better as president than Trump (and if you think so, I'd like to hear you argue it). I suspect you find the compromise unpalatable. I can understand that. I, too, draw the line at a certain point. I couldn't vote for HRC.

Yes, Sanders isn't perfect. Chomsky also said another important thing: "We're all compromised." Everyone who is a citizen of the US is compromised, and bears some measure of responsibility for the military interventions undertaken by our government. Perhaps we should renounce our citizenship, refuse to pay taxes, etc. But most of us don't -- not even those of us committed to activist work in other ways -- significant ways -- to make things better.

So what are those ways, for you?

V4V PGGreen • 6 minutes ago ,

But you don't need to convince me or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect

-for me it isn' that he's not perfect, it's that I think he sucks

"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

-funny, that's a favorite line of Democrats

I get that, but it doesn't negate that Sanders's chances are next to nil.

Your suggestion of me signaling whom I support would fall on deaf ears around here. I have said this many times- I will probably for the Green Party candidate or the Socialist Equality Party candidate. If only a Democrat and Republican appear on the ballot then I would refuse to vote even if I had to pay a fine. I am not in the habit of telling anyone whom to vote for unless asked.

Before a 3rd can succeed, the fantasy that the fix can come through the Democrats needs to be destroyed. Not to worry, in due time it will be obvious.

Mensch59 PGGreen • 16 minutes ago ,

My guess/bet is that V4V believes that the truth "We're all compromised" doesn't apply to him.
He sees himself as a truth-knower and a truth-teller.
He won't commit to logical argumentation.
He'll preach the truth to you.

Patrick_Walker V4V • 2 hours ago • edited ,

I saw this video long ago--and agreed with it. But though Sanders' chances are small, they're still vastly larger than the NONEXISTENT chances of success of the purist, "Born to Lose" left. Why not just admit that you've totally given up and simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of us with some (albeit small) hope?

V4V Patrick_Walker • an hour ago • edited ,

simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of us with some (albeit small) hope?

-straw man

That isn't what I do because I couldn't care less whom Democrats support and vote for. Typically, I post some unpleasant truth about Sanders, like his lackluster polling numbers or his support for neoliberal warmongers and sit back and watch the ad hominems and downvotes roll in. I am not normally on the attack, I am usually on the receiving end.

I admit that I see this forum as a form of entertainment. I admit I have zero expectation that someone to my liking will be elected president and that the system is going to change anytime soon. Do I believe it possible? Yes, I believe it is possible, I just don't believe it possible using the corrupt, Democratic Party as a vehicle and that's where we differ.

And that the crux of our issue- you believe the Democratic Party can be used a vehicle to convert the CIA/Wall Street/War Inc. Democrats into the peoples' party, and I do not. If the needed changes are ever to arrive, it will be in spite of the Democrats not because of them. I hope you stick around because in due time I'll be telling you, "Told ya so."

acme V4V • an hour ago ,

The problem with your position is that, unlike Sanders, you don't seem to understand that a third candidate party candidate hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being president unless if s/he somehow gets more electoral votes that both the major parties combined. If not, it goes to the house, and in the current partisan atmosphere, would be decided for the candidate of the House majority.
The major parties have a death-grip on the presidency while the electoral college exists.

V4V acme • an hour ago • edited ,

You don't seem to understand that Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell of being the Democratic Party candidate for many reasons including the DNC arguing in court it is a private corporation and can legally rig primary and the trusty superdelegates for Biden.

What I propose is a movement outside the Democratic Party in inside it. I believe any attempt to reform the Democratic Party is doomed to fail. All this whistling in the dark over Sanders is a distraction and a kicking the can down the road to the time you Democrats finally realize it isn't going to work. You obviously didn't learn it in 2016, and I would be surprised if you learn it once Sanders tanks and begins campaigning for Biden just like he did Clinton. I will promise this, I'll say, "I told ya so" in a matter of months. That's okay, play it again, Sam.

Zsuzsi Kruska • 4 hours ago • edited ,

People believe they need others to tell them what to do and give them the illusion somebody cares about them and has their best interests at heart. That's an archetype in the brain that goes back to our baby/childhood when we were dependent on our caregivers for sustenance, comfort and life itself.That's where the original concept of needing "leaders" comes from. But, what happens is psyco/sociopaths see this weakness in humanity and force their way to the top, to herd and exploit the gullible sheeple for their own agendas and selfish interests. No matter who rises to the top, she/he got their through the same system that's been going on since tribes had their chief; chief's lieutenant and witch doctor/shaman. Those three keep the tribe in line with their own desires. Chief through brute force, his lieutenant through information and witch doctor through religion and "spiritual" services; and all three require tribute and fees from the rest of the tribe. So, you will see, regardless of who the next POTUS will be, that same structure, although more complex today, will repeat itself. New boss/old boss, same ol' same ol'. All power has to be returned to the people at the local level before Wash. starts WWIII. But, if that happens, at least we won't have to worry about global warming with a nuclear winter after the bombs drop.


trilobytegames • 3 days ago ,

As usual, I find your analysis and commentary honest and accurate. However, I do take exception to your pulling out these canards:
"Trump's contempt of Congress and attempt to get Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to open an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in exchange for almost $400 million in U.S. military aid and allowing Zelensky to visit the White House are impeachable offenses"

Trump has certain executive privileges and him being guilty of contempt of Congress should be up to the Supreme Court to decide. Jonathan Turley in his testimony made that quite clear. Military aid was never mentioned in the phone call. Zelensky was unaware aid would be withheld. So if Trump were using the money as a means to induce Zelensky to do those favors, it was a totally botched one. To quote Dr. Strangelove, "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost...if you keep it a secret!"

Nir Haramati • 3 days ago • edited ,

New avenues for accountability and oversight became possible in Washington, D.C., in 2019, following the election of a new Democratic Party majority in the House (and the most diverse Congress ever) in the 2018 midterms. As a result, Democrats took hold of the subpoena power that rests in the House of Representatives, along with the power to set the agenda across congressional committees. As a result, 2019 has been full of important moments for congressional oversight of both the Trump administration and private business. Here are five of the most important moments in congressional oversight in 2019.

1. Betsy DeVos, Are You "Too Corrupt" or "Too Incompetent"? ...
2. Big Bank CEOs Are Stumped by Simple Budgets ...
3. Wells Fargo Announces Plan to Divest From Private Prisons in Congressional Testimony ...
4. Rep. Ilhan Omar vs. Elliott Abrams ...
5. Voting to Impeach the President ...

Congressional Oversight Claimed Important Victories in 2019. Here Are the Top 5

The only people who lie and obfuscate facts as much as Trump and his GOP cult are neo progressive demagogues and propaganda buffs like Chris 'regime-change-in-America' Hedges.

Kaptain Amerika • 3 days ago • edited ,

Absolutely bush should have been impeached, convicted, removed and executed for war crimes and mass murder.

But because he wasn't doesn't mean that our orange Fuhrer shouldn't be.
He is the most dangerous authoritarian propagandist and threat to this country since Hitler.

Dr Hacksaw Kaptain Amerika • 3 days ago • edited ,

"[Trump] is the most dangerous authoritarian propagandist and threat to this country since Hitler."

Correction, Kaptain: Since Obama.

rosemariejackowski Dr Hacksaw • 3 days ago ,

THE MOST DANGEROUS IN HISTORY....
https://countercurrents.org...

Kaptain Amerika Dr Hacksaw • 3 days ago ,

NObama was a horrible POTUS for the 99% and is THE reason why we have trump, but he didn't poison every aspect of the government and everything else like your orange Fuhrer is doing, which is the exact same tactic that Hitler used to create Nazi Germany.

Ron Ruggieri Dr Hacksaw • 3 days ago ,

The generic Left is ignoring this aspect of the Trump impeachment circus . The whole farce IS political. Now Senator Lisa Murkowski wants her Republican Party to rise above politics ( and do the wrong thing ? ). In the past three years when did the Democrat Party ever rise above politics ? Politics USA is always CLASS politics, always IMPERIALIST , MILITARIST politics . All the " liberal " Democrats have been slobbering over the UN-ELECTED shadow government of the United States , the National Security Police State , slobbering over FBI, CIA bureaucrats , uniformed officials of the Pentagon War Crimes Machine . Join them ?

This Senator Lisa Murkowski -no surprise - is in good standing with the Israel Lobby collectively determined to nullify the 2016 presidential election . NEWS clip :

[ "There are about 6 million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it's quite small, but in terms of influence its quite big," Farage said. Farage seemed to question why Israel was not facing election-meddling accusations, saying Israeli groups "have a voice within American politics" but "I don't think anybody is suggesting that the Israeli government tried to affect the result of the American elections."]

Did not the Kafkaesque Trump impeachment hearings look and sound like Old Yiddish Theater soap opera ? How many working class Christian Americans have heartfelt moral and cultural ties to the Ukraine of all places, now celebrating its first Jewish friend of Zionist Apartheid Israel president ? Who in the USA authorized this character to wage a proxy war against post-communist Russia ? WE THE PEOPLE ?
Guess WHO is promoting the HATE RUSSIA, New McCarthyism ?

VallejoD • 3 days ago ,

$748 billion in 2020 for the military death machine equals $23 MILLION A SECOND.

How many schools or hospitals could have been built, how many roads or bridges repaired, how many students educated with the money the MIC has squandered in the few seconds it has taken me to write this?

We are destroying our people from the inside out. This is treason.

[Jan 01, 2020] Radical "essentialist identity" left is just tools of financial oligarchy and/or stooges of intelligence agencies and always has been

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

likbez 12.31.19 at 2:25 pm

Tim 12.31.19 at 3:46 am @3

"If this succeeds, we'll be well on the path to dictatorship." This seems predicated on the idea that 'whites' will only be able to hold onto power by Dictatorship. Population trends suggest whites will still be the largest group [just under half] in 2055. A considerable group given their, to borrow the phrase, 'privilege'. Add conservative Asian and even Catholic Latino voters, is it that difficult to envisage a scenario where Republicans sometimes achieve power without Dictatorship? They are already benefiting from the radical left helping drive traditional working class white voters to the right [helped by Republican/Fox etc hyperbole].

Radical left is either idiots of stooges of intelligence agencies and always has been.

IMHO the idea that " whites" are or will be the force behind the move to the dictatorship is completely naïve. Dictatorship is needed for financial oligarchy and it is the most plausible path of development due to another factor -- the collapse of neoliberal ideology and complete discrediting of neoliberal elite. At least in the USA. Russiagate should be viewed as an attempt to stage a color revolution and remove the President by the USA intelligence agencies (in close cooperation with the "Five eyes") .

I would view Russiagate is a kind of Beer Hall Putsch with intelligence agencies instead of national-socialist party. A couple conspirators might be jailed after Durham investigation is finished (Hilter was jailed after the putsch), but the danger that CIA will seize the political power remains. After all KGB was in this role in the USSR for along time. Is the USA that different? I don't think so. There is no countervailing force: the number of people with security clearance in the USA exceed five million. This five million and not "whites" like some completely naïve people propose is the critical mass for the dictatorship.
https://news.yahoo.com/durham-surprises-even-allies-statement-202907008.html

The potential explosiveness of Durham's mission was further underscored by the disclosure that he was examining the role of John O. Brennan, the former CIA director, in how the intelligence community assessed Russia's 2016 election interference.

BTW "whites" are not a homogeneous group. There is especially abhorrent and dangerous neoliberal strata of "whites" including members of financial oligarchy, the "professional class" and "academia" (economics department are completely infected.) as well as MIC prostitutes in MSM.

[Jan 01, 2020] A central premise of conventional media wisdom has collapsed. On Thursday, both the New York Times and Politico published major articles reporting that Bernie Sanders really could win the Democratic presidential nomination

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
Dec 29, 2019 | www.truthdig.com

A central premise of conventional media wisdom has collapsed. On Thursday, both the New York Times and Politico published major articles reporting that Bernie Sanders really could win the Democratic presidential nomination. Such acknowledgments will add to the momentum of the Bernie 2020 campaign as the new year begins -- but they foreshadow a massive escalation of anti-Sanders misinformation and invective.

Throughout 2019, corporate media routinely asserted that the Sanders campaign had little chance of winning the nomination. As is so often the case, journalists were echoing each other more than paying attention to grassroots realities. But now, polling numbers and other indicators on the ground are finally sparking very different headlines from the media establishment.

From the Times : " Why Bernie Sanders Is Tough to Beat ." From Politico : " Democratic Insiders: Bernie Could Win the Nomination ."

Those stories, and others likely to follow in copycat news outlets, will heighten the energies of Sanders supporters and draw in many wavering voters. But the shift in media narratives about the Bernie campaign's chances will surely boost the decibels of alarm bells in elite circles where dousing the fires of progressive populism is a top priority.

For corporate Democrats and their profuse media allies, the approach of disparaging and minimizing Bernie Sanders in 2019 didn't work. In 2020, the next step will be to trash him with a vast array of full-bore attacks.

Along the way, the corporate media will occasionally give voice to some Sanders defenders and supporters. A few establishment Democrats will decide to make nice with him early in the year. But the overwhelming bulk of Sanders media coverage -- synced up with the likes of such prominent corporate flunkies as Rahm Emanuel and Neera Tanden as well as Wall Street Democrats accustomed to ruling the roost in the party -- will range from condescending to savage.

When the Bernie campaign wasn't being ignored by corporate media during 2019, innuendos and mud often flew in his direction. But we ain't seen nothing yet.

With so much at stake -- including the presidency and the top leadership of the Democratic Party -- no holds will be barred. For the forces of corporate greed and the military-industrial complex, it'll be all-out propaganda war on the Bernie campaign.

While reasons for pessimism are abundant, so are ample reasons to understand that a Sanders presidency is a real possibility . The last places we should look for political realism are corporate media outlets that distort options and encourage passivity.

Bernie is fond of quoting a statement from Nelson Mandela: "It always seems impossible until it is done."

From the grassroots, as 2020 gets underway, the solution should be clear: All left hands on deck.


Jan Goslinga • 38 minutes ago ,

Elections aren't real. Democrats will nominate Joe Biden to lose the election. Trump will remain as fascist strongman and the dems will continue to blame his neoconservative policies on his white trash constituency.

Bernie serves a few important functions.
1. he keeps the radicals from leaving the plantation and going 3rd party.
2. his promotion of progressive policies will make Biden less popular and help him lose to Trump
3. Bernie and his "socialism" can then be blamed for losing the election to Trump

Maxwell Jan Goslinga • 15 minutes ago ,

Unfortunately this comment will be buried in this monstrosity of a thread- now at over 300 comments with only about a third of them having a much relevance.

You might consider re-posting in reply to one of the foremost comments. Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the campaign hallucinations.

I've often wondered how it is people could believe the elections could have any positive and lasting impact on their lives if they have been through a couple of cycles. Do they not also wonder how it is that these election (marketing) campaigns now stretch out for well over a year nowadays demanding everyone's political attention, energy and resources. To say it is a colossal waste does not quite capture the enormity of the mind job being to people.

Mensch59 Maxwell • 8 minutes ago • edited ,

Your simple realism will certainly not be well received during the campaign hallucinations.

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. You "realists" who are true believers that you have the Truth and have a calling to preach the Truth absolutely must stand against the unwashed masses who claim that your "reality" isn't even intersubjectively verifiable, much less dialectical & material [eta & historical ].

I quite enjoyed what SteelPirate/LaborSolidarity had to say about you attempting to gain a vanguard following by trolling lib-prog sites.

Mensch59 Jan Goslinga • 21 minutes ago ,

Elections aren't real.

Never pay attention to anyone who claims what's "real" and what isn't. Politics certainly doesn't exist in the realm of an objective, concrete, physical, naturalistic, materialistic reality which is shared by a consensus of rational observers. At best, politics deals with intersubjectively verifiable social phenomena. Thus, politics is mostly idealistic in the belief that each mind generates its own reality.

This realization is the topic of intersubjective verifiability, as recounted, for example, by Max Born (1949, 1965) Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance , who points out that all knowledge, including natural or social science, is also subjective. p. 162: "Thus it dawned upon me that fundamentally everything is subjective, everything without exception. That was a shock."
newestbeginning • 2 hours ago ,

Meanwhile the wealth of the world's top 500 grew 25% in 2019...

https://www.livemint.com/ne...

V4V • 2 hours ago • edited ,

Noam Chomsky on Bernie Sanders's Chances of Success- "...the chances he can be elected are pretty small." (Waiting with bated breath for copious downvotes by those who hate the truth and hate reality).

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FEpXJvWSa4FQ%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEpXJvWSa4FQ&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FEpXJvWSa4FQ%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

PGGreen V4V • 2 hours ago • edited ,

Most of who support Sanders know that his presidency will involve an uphill battle. Chomsky is being realistic.

But there really is no better option for meaningful change working within the political system than supporting Sanders. it is also important to note that "Our Revolution" has energized many young activists, encouraging them to continue the fight. This goes beyond politics to social and economic issues. If Sanders leaves us with a movement, this may turn out to be more important than the presidency in the long run.

Keep working for effective moral and economic justice and democracy!

V4V PGGreen • an hour ago ,

Well, I have said this several times, it's not the microscopic left that you need to convince, it's the majority of self-identifying Democrats not supporting Sanders that you need to convince. I am repelled by the Democratic Party, but there are millions who identify as Democrats and many are proud of it. You need to convince them, not us.

PGGreen V4V • 21 minutes ago • edited ,

Yes, although I don't think that those who support a Leftist agenda--whether you actually call them Leftists or not--are quite so microscopic a group as you imply. But you don't need to convince me or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect, or that it will be difficult for him to be elected president. We already know; we simply consider him the best option within this context of voting.

Have you ever thought of turning your approach to systemic commentary (which is valid and interesting, BTW, I'm not discounting it) around and saying what candidates you support-- in this context being discussed of voting-- instead of which ones you don't? And then explaining why such support would be effective?

I would say that what is wrong with the world is more a fault of the economic and political system than of Sanders alone--who not only plays small part in causing what is wrong, but a significant part in trying to correct it. Yes, he works within the system. That is a given. It may be, as Chris Hedges thinks, that there is no hope working within the system. But Noam Chomsky's approach also bears serious consideration that even Hedges doesn't discount. Voting will only be a small part of what brings about change, but it may make some slight difference--if you can stomach it. And it only takes a small amount of time.

"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

I don't see much of an argument that Sanders will be no better as president than Trump (and if you think so, I'd like to hear you argue it). I suspect you find the compromise unpalatable. I can understand that. I, too, draw the line at a certain point. I couldn't vote for HRC.

Yes, Sanders isn't perfect. Chomsky also said another important thing: "We're all compromised." Everyone who is a citizen of the US is compromised, and bears some measure of responsibility for the military interventions undertaken by our government. Perhaps we should renounce our citizenship, refuse to pay taxes, etc. But most of us don't -- not even those of us committed to activist work in other ways -- significant ways -- to make things better.

So what are those ways, for you?

V4V PGGreen • 6 minutes ago ,

But you don't need to convince me or most others here (probably) that Sanders isn't perfect

-for me it isn' that he's not perfect, it's that I think he sucks

"In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."

-funny, that's a favorite line of Democrats

I get that, but it doesn't negate that Sanders's chances are next to nil.

Your suggestion of me signaling whom I support would fall on deaf ears around here. I have said this many times- I will probably for the Green Party candidate or the Socialist Equality Party candidate. If only a Democrat and Republican appear on the ballot then I would refuse to vote even if I had to pay a fine. I am not in the habit of telling anyone whom to vote for unless asked.

Before a 3rd can succeed, the fantasy that the fix can come through the Democrats needs to be destroyed. Not to worry, in due time it will be obvious.

Mensch59 PGGreen • 16 minutes ago ,

My guess/bet is that V4V believes that the truth "We're all compromised" doesn't apply to him.
He sees himself as a truth-knower and a truth-teller.
He won't commit to logical argumentation.
He'll preach the truth to you.

Patrick_Walker V4V • 2 hours ago • edited ,

I saw this video long ago--and agreed with it. But though Sanders' chances are small, they're still vastly larger than the NONEXISTENT chances of success of the purist, "Born to Lose" left. Why not just admit that you've totally given up and simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of us with some (albeit small) hope?

V4V Patrick_Walker • an hour ago • edited ,

simply like to spent your time bitching and criticizing those of us with some (albeit small) hope?

-straw man

That isn't what I do because I couldn't care less whom Democrats support and vote for. Typically, I post some unpleasant truth about Sanders, like his lackluster polling numbers or his support for neoliberal warmongers and sit back and watch the ad hominems and downvotes roll in. I am not normally on the attack, I am usually on the receiving end.

I admit that I see this forum as a form of entertainment. I admit I have zero expectation that someone to my liking will be elected president and that the system is going to change anytime soon. Do I believe it possible? Yes, I believe it is possible, I just don't believe it possible using the corrupt, Democratic Party as a vehicle and that's where we differ.

And that the crux of our issue- you believe the Democratic Party can be used a vehicle to convert the CIA/Wall Street/War Inc. Democrats into the peoples' party, and I do not. If the needed changes are ever to arrive, it will be in spite of the Democrats not because of them. I hope you stick around because in due time I'll be telling you, "Told ya so."

acme V4V • an hour ago ,

The problem with your position is that, unlike Sanders, you don't seem to understand that a third candidate party candidate hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being president unless if s/he somehow gets more electoral votes that both the major parties combined. If not, it goes to the house, and in the current partisan atmosphere, would be decided for the candidate of the House majority.
The major parties have a death-grip on the presidency while the electoral college exists.

V4V acme • an hour ago • edited ,

You don't seem to understand that Sanders has a snowball's chance in hell of being the Democratic Party candidate for many reasons including the DNC arguing in court it is a private corporation and can legally rig primary and the trusty superdelegates for Biden.

What I propose is a movement outside the Democratic Party in inside it. I believe any attempt to reform the Democratic Party is doomed to fail. All this whistling in the dark over Sanders is a distraction and a kicking the can down the road to the time you Democrats finally realize it isn't going to work. You obviously didn't learn it in 2016, and I would be surprised if you learn it once Sanders tanks and begins campaigning for Biden just like he did Clinton. I will promise this, I'll say, "I told ya so" in a matter of months. That's okay, play it again, Sam.

Zsuzsi Kruska • 4 hours ago • edited ,

People believe they need others to tell them what to do and give them the illusion somebody cares about them and has their best interests at heart. That's an archetype in the brain that goes back to our baby/childhood when we were dependent on our caregivers for sustenance, comfort and life itself.That's where the original concept of needing "leaders" comes from. But, what happens is psyco/sociopaths see this weakness in humanity and force their way to the top, to herd and exploit the gullible sheeple for their own agendas and selfish interests. No matter who rises to the top, she/he got their through the same system that's been going on since tribes had their chief; chief's lieutenant and witch doctor/shaman. Those three keep the tribe in line with their own desires. Chief through brute force, his lieutenant through information and witch doctor through religion and "spiritual" services; and all three require tribute and fees from the rest of the tribe. So, you will see, regardless of who the next POTUS will be, that same structure, although more complex today, will repeat itself. New boss/old boss, same ol' same ol'. All power has to be returned to the people at the local level before Wash. starts WWIII. But, if that happens, at least we won't have to worry about global warming with a nuclear winter after the bombs drop.


trilobytegames • 3 days ago ,

As usual, I find your analysis and commentary honest and accurate. However, I do take exception to your pulling out these canards:
"Trump's contempt of Congress and attempt to get Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to open an investigation of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in exchange for almost $400 million in U.S. military aid and allowing Zelensky to visit the White House are impeachable offenses"

Trump has certain executive privileges and him being guilty of contempt of Congress should be up to the Supreme Court to decide. Jonathan Turley in his testimony made that quite clear. Military aid was never mentioned in the phone call. Zelensky was unaware aid would be withheld. So if Trump were using the money as a means to induce Zelensky to do those favors, it was a totally botched one. To quote Dr. Strangelove, "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost...if you keep it a secret!"

Nir Haramati • 3 days ago • edited ,

New avenues for accountability and oversight became possible in Washington, D.C., in 2019, following the election of a new Democratic Party majority in the House (and the most diverse Congress ever) in the 2018 midterms. As a result, Democrats took hold of the subpoena power that rests in the House of Representatives, along with the power to set the agenda across congressional committees. As a result, 2019 has been full of important moments for congressional oversight of both the Trump administration and private business. Here are five of the most important moments in congressional oversight in 2019.

1. Betsy DeVos, Are You "Too Corrupt" or "Too Incompetent"? ...
2. Big Bank CEOs Are Stumped by Simple Budgets ...
3. Wells Fargo Announces Plan to Divest From Private Prisons in Congressional Testimony ...
4. Rep. Ilhan Omar vs. Elliott Abrams ...
5. Voting to Impeach the President ...

Congressional Oversight Claimed Important Victories in 2019. Here Are the Top 5

The only people who lie and obfuscate facts as much as Trump and his GOP cult are neo progressive demagogues and propaganda buffs like Chris 'regime-change-in-America' Hedges.

Kaptain Amerika • 3 days ago • edited ,

Absolutely bush should have been impeached, convicted, removed and executed for war crimes and mass murder.

But because he wasn't doesn't mean that our orange Fuhrer shouldn't be.
He is the most dangerous authoritarian propagandist and threat to this country since Hitler.

Dr Hacksaw Kaptain Amerika • 3 days ago • edited ,

"[Trump] is the most dangerous authoritarian propagandist and threat to this country since Hitler."

Correction, Kaptain: Since Obama.

rosemariejackowski Dr Hacksaw • 3 days ago ,

THE MOST DANGEROUS IN HISTORY....
https://countercurrents.org...

Kaptain Amerika Dr Hacksaw • 3 days ago ,

NObama was a horrible POTUS for the 99% and is THE reason why we have trump, but he didn't poison every aspect of the government and everything else like your orange Fuhrer is doing, which is the exact same tactic that Hitler used to create Nazi Germany.

Ron Ruggieri Dr Hacksaw • 3 days ago ,

The generic Left is ignoring this aspect of the Trump impeachment circus . The whole farce IS political. Now Senator Lisa Murkowski wants her Republican Party to rise above politics ( and do the wrong thing ? ). In the past three years when did the Democrat Party ever rise above politics ? Politics USA is always CLASS politics, always IMPERIALIST , MILITARIST politics . All the " liberal " Democrats have been slobbering over the UN-ELECTED shadow government of the United States , the National Security Police State , slobbering over FBI, CIA bureaucrats , uniformed officials of the Pentagon War Crimes Machine . Join them ?

This Senator Lisa Murkowski -no surprise - is in good standing with the Israel Lobby collectively determined to nullify the 2016 presidential election . NEWS clip :

[ "There are about 6 million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it's quite small, but in terms of influence its quite big," Farage said. Farage seemed to question why Israel was not facing election-meddling accusations, saying Israeli groups "have a voice within American politics" but "I don't think anybody is suggesting that the Israeli government tried to affect the result of the American elections."]

Did not the Kafkaesque Trump impeachment hearings look and sound like Old Yiddish Theater soap opera ? How many working class Christian Americans have heartfelt moral and cultural ties to the Ukraine of all places, now celebrating its first Jewish friend of Zionist Apartheid Israel president ? Who in the USA authorized this character to wage a proxy war against post-communist Russia ? WE THE PEOPLE ?
Guess WHO is promoting the HATE RUSSIA, New McCarthyism ?

VallejoD • 3 days ago ,

$748 billion in 2020 for the military death machine equals $23 MILLION A SECOND.

How many schools or hospitals could have been built, how many roads or bridges repaired, how many students educated with the money the MIC has squandered in the few seconds it has taken me to write this?

We are destroying our people from the inside out. This is treason.

[Jan 01, 2020] "Maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises" is self-destuctive and anti-social as it is equlent to local optimizatin of a complex social system

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

anarchyst , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:56 pm GMT

@Dutch Boy rk, employees need to make an adequate wage. Unfortunately, this premise does not exist in today's business climate.

Henry Ford openly criticized those of the "tribe" for manipulating wall street and banksters to their own advantage, and was roundly (and unjustly) criticized for pointing out the TRUTH.

Catholic priest, Father Coughlin did the same thing and was punished by the Catholic church, despite his popularity and exposing the TRUTH of the American economy and the outsider internationalists that ran it . . . and STILL run it.

Our race to the bottom will not be without consequences. A great realignment is necessary (and is coming) . .

[Jan 01, 2020] The relationship between Jews and neoliberalism

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [211] Disclaimer , says: December 19, 2019 at 8:38 pm GMT

This is a timely article for me as I have been pondering the relationship between Jews and neoliberalism for some time now.

At university I studied under a brilliant Neo-Marxist professor who showed me some theory and arguments that went a long way towards explaining how to make sense of the global power structure.

(Just a quick not for those who recoil at the mere mention of Neo-Marxist: the academics that use a Marxist lens as a tool to criticize the powerful are not all the cuckold communist SJW types – some of these individuals are extremely intelligent and they make very powerful arguments backed by loads of data.)

One of the theories I was introduced to was the notion of the Transnational Capitalist Class in this article called Towards A Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class:

http://media.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/respring18/Intl313_ZOnis/3_Historical_Structuralism.pdf

The authors write the following:

Sklair's work goes the furthest in conceiving of the capitalist class as no longer tied to territoriality Inherent in the international concept is a system of nation-states that mediates relations between classes and groups, including the notion of national capitals and national bourgeoisi. Transnational, by contrast, denotes economic and related social, political, and cultural processes – including class formation that supersede nation-states

What distinguishes the TCC from national or local capitalists is that it is involved in globalized production and manages globalized circuits of accumulation that give it an objective class existence and identity spatially and politically in the global system above any local territories and polities.

Since reading your (Dr Joyce) work on the JQ I began to see the connection between age old complaints of Jews, and what Ford referred to as "The International Jew". In fact, replace the term "transnational capitalist class" from my passages quoted above (and many others) and what you have is perfect mirror image of the argument.

This question has come up often lately, synchronistically (or maybe not). I'm somewhat new to the JQ, having consumed many hours of work (including much of your own) after being sent down the rabbit hole by the ongoing Epstein case. I was pondering that perhaps, Jews take the blame for what the predatory capitalists are doing. Not even a week later you addressed this precise question in your piece about Slavoj Ziszek and now with "vulture capitalism" it is coming up yet again in Carlson's segment followed by the article right here. It also came up on the "other side" in the blog I follow of a professor of globalization in this article: https://zeroanthropology.net/2019/11/27/global-giants-american-empire-and-transnational-capital/

The link above is a review of the book Giants: The Global Power Elite . The review provides a summary of the book which once again could be a text about Jews if one were to replace the term "transnational capitalist class" with "Jews". Why I mention it, though, is the following:

"Chapter 2, "The Global Financial Giants: The Central Core of Global Capitalism," identifies the 17 global financial giants -- money management firms that control more than one trillion dollars in capital. As these firms invest in each other, and many smaller firms, the interlocked capital that they manage surpasses $41 trillion (which amounts to about 16% of the world's total wealth). The 17 global financial giants are led by 199 directors. This chapter details how these financial giants have pushed for global privatization of virtually everything, in order to stimulate growth to absorb excess capital. The financial giants are supported by a wide array of institutions: "governments, intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police forces, militaries, and corporate media all work in support of their vital interests" (p. 60).

Chapter 3, "Managers: The Global Power Elite of the Financial Giants," largely consists of the detailed profiles of the 199 financial managers just mentioned.

This caught my eye because I immediately wondered how many of those 199 directors are Jewish. It also pertains directly to this exact article because I am confident that the vulture capitalists you targeted here are profiled in the book, probably with many others.

Now, I am not in the business of writing about the JQ, so I wanted to suggest to anyone out there that is that if they were to obtain a copy of this book and determine how many of the 199 directors are jews. What this could accomplish is a marriage of the major two theories of the "anti-semites" (for lack of a better word) and the "Neo-Marxists". I would argue that perhaps both sides would learn they are coming at the same thing from two different angles. Most would ignore it, but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much needed electric shock if they were to see the JQ framed in marxist terms. Perhaps some alliances could be forged across the cultural divide in this struggle. Personally I believe that both angles are perfectly valid, and that understanding one without the other will leaves far too much to be desired when studying the powerful.

[Jan 01, 2020] The internal contrudictions of identity politics is clearly demonstrated by the current approach to transgender activism

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

ph 12.30.19 at 12:54 am ( 90 )

"Identity politics involves a demand not merely for tolerance but for acceptance."

For me this is the critical issue. When we 'demand' something from another, or another group, we are making an explicit statement of our own intolerance, we refuse to accept the values, attitudes, and/or behaviours of another. And the framing of this demand as a right, rather than a request, or a suggestion, is a problem for many here.

The levels of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance expressed towards MAGA people in general, and a few individuals in specific, over the last three years has been breathtaking. The notion that respect, tolerance, and acceptance cut both ways is routinely explicitly rejected. Indeed, so much so that both the NYT and the WAPO this weekend felt the need to remind readers of the need to respect MAGA people. The same might be said of people of faith, another much-maligned group, especially if these folks happen to be white and Christian.

I'm glad that JH posted the 'amateur' warning, because that's precisely what too much of what CT has become. People may or may not be engaging in good faith arguments. Calling people racists and fascists, as a matter of course, in no way contributes anything to any discussion, and would seem to be a direct violation of the comments policy. Yet, in thread after thread, that's what we continue read – racist, Christian, fascist, racist,white fascist, racist, fascist until the terms have lost all meaning, lo these many years.

The ground is moving beneath our feet. If the last few months (years?) are any indication, the CT community has very few ideas about what is happening in America, Europe, and other nations, or what to do about it. Or, people are expressing their ideas elsewhere.

Buying into myths does the community no good: remember all the time wasted on Koch Conspiracy Theories? Then, from 2016 up to the present, leading Democrats and 'progressive' bubbleheads literally channelled Joe McCarthy 'I have secret evidence, which I cannot divulge now, that leading members of this administration are in fact agents of a foreign power!' I mean, you couldn't make that stuff up.

Night after night, day after day for the last three years – TRAITORS, RUSSIAN AGENTS, and no matter how many times a few (Greenwald, Taibbi, Tracy) tried to point out that the accusations had been crafted literally by the same intelligence agents that brought us Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, these factual cautions fell on deaf ears.

Lost in all of this is reality: which is that the world is not twitter. All firsthand reports I receive from family and friends in Canada, America, and Europe is that people of different faiths and opinions work hard, if not harder now, to demonstrate respect and compassion to one another and sincerely enjoy doing so. Huh?

Happy Holidays and the best to everyone in 2020!

Aubergine 12.30.19 at 2:24 am ( 91 )
JQ: To get back to the criticism of identity politics from the left, consider what would happen if your original post was made in a less sedate, more idpol-friendly forum. Nobody would be engaging with the arguments you've made, which at least some commenters on this thread have been doing. Instead, they'd be focussing on you , working out which classes of privilege you enjoy – particularly racial, gender-based and (dis)ability-based privileges – so that they can attack you from those directions in the knowledge that any response from you would be considered an expression of privilege, and thus subject to further criticism.

Since this post is pretty unobjectionable you might get away with it, but I can see at least a couple of angles of attack in the first line ("Warning: Amateur sociological/political analysis ahead"): if you're an "amateur", why are you speaking instead of listening to the people who have direct personal experience of [whatever marginalised identity]? , and why does this analysis need to come from you when you could be making space for someone less privileged to give their own, more valuable analysis?

dbk 12.30.19 at 4:25 am ( 92 )
I read the sequence in the OP differently, I think, from most commenters (and, I think, from JQ):

Tolerance: Women allowed the vote (19th Amendment, 1920);
Acceptance: Women admitted to all-male Ivy League universities (Yale, 1969)
Deference: Affirmative Action (EEOC, 1965)
Dominance: ? The election of Barack Obama (2008) ?

[Note: This is the interpretation given by those on the right – those currently in power.]

Identity Politics has served to mask the real problem in the U.S. over the past 30-40 years: growing inequality. Yes yes, I know: intersectionality – but how successful has that been, really? Examples, please. [Note: Idpol imho belongs to the so-called "private sphere," not the "public sphere" – I have no interest in the private life of others; their public life, however, is of considerable interest to me and other citizens.]

I don't think this was accidental. It is to the ruling class's benefit that citizens/voters coalesce emotionally around issues which detract attention from growing inequality.

The U.S. is governed by the rich, the 1%. But if this were broadly understood and accepted, the 1% would be voted out of office at all levels (local, state, national).

Identity politics ensures that voters will be more or less equally distributed between Ds and Rs, with Ds = pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion; Rs = anti-LGBTQ rights, anti-abortion (+ other issues).

I invite CT commenters to engage in a small thought-experiment: What would it be like in the U.S. if its Gini score were half what it was in 2016 (so, 20 instead of 40+)?

On a related – though not, for some, alas, obviously so – note, I recommend an about-to-be-published book by labor historian Toni Gilpin: "The Long Deep Grudge: A Story of Big Capital, Radical Labor, and Class War in the American Heartland," which will come out early in 2020. Gilpin analyzes the Farm Equipment Workers (FE) union and their strike in Louisville, KY against IH (International Harvester), during which blacks and whites united against IH for economic reasons, and won.

Full economic equality goes a fair way towards advancing tolerance and acceptance, obviates the need for deference, and does away with the existence of dominance.

MisterMr 12.30.19 at 12:59 pm ( 95 )
@orange watch 79

It seems to me that in this thread there is a lot of confusion about the idea of identity and groups, and your comment doubles down with the idea that economic class is an identity.

First from a old fart Marxist point of view, you are mixing up base (the economic structure, the relationship with the means of production) with superstructure (blue collar identity). These two are not the same thing, the same way sex (a biological fact) is not the same as gender (a cultural thing). Only gender is a matter of identity, biological sex cannot be, precisely because it is not a cultural thing. For similar reasons class proper is not the same as identities based more or less on class.

Second, however you want to put it high education at best makes you upper middle class, not ruling class (although many people of the ruling class also have high education, but they aren't ruling class because of this). This again is the old (19th century) distinction by Max Weber between classe and ceto, I use the Italian words because they both translate as "class" in English damn you anglophones. I recently chatted with a friend who has a degree in statistics who confirmed that this is still a taught as a bread and butter distinction in statistics, at least in Italy.

Finally there is a big distinction between identities and the often (but not always) different moral assumptions that go with that on the one hand, and on the other the way these identities are used in terms of political marketing, that is something different and mostly make sense in democracies, but not for example in an argument about colonialism where identities still exist but the political situation is totally different.

Finally, the problem is that with each identity or set of identities comes a set of moral values. Now if we see morals as coming from identities but identities as a natural thing, we enter in a world of moral relativism where only the identity group who cries louder can manage to force its values on others.
This is in fact the implicit idea in right wing populism, and the reason they sometimes seem to think that political might makes right.
But in reality:
1) identities are not a natural thing at all, for example gender identities depend on forms of the family that are obviously historical and linked to economic structures, so is the low education blue collar identity;
2) many disequalities are objective and we can measure them, for example we know that economic inequality increased in recent decades.

So on the whole I think it is possible to make a case about objectively more egalitarian (and therefore better) sets of values and identity.

EB 12.30.19 at 1:10 pm ( 96 )
Three questions:

1. There is a missing category in the 4-stage paradigm, and it is "affirmation." People can feel tolerated and then accepted, but not affirmed as much as the majority group feels affirmed, and this is a significant. Although what, specifically, it feels like to be affirmed, or to extend affirmation, can be murky. Is affirmation even a legitimate or realistic thing to expect or demand from one's social environment? Why or why not? What proportion of the social environment should extend affirmation in order for an individual from a marginalized group feel that they are being treated equally?

2. In every society in which there are dominant identities (I can think of few where the dominant group is singular and monolithic), there is history to contend with. The four (or five) states of intergroup relations are not like a light switch that can be turned on or off. What rate of changed attitudes and relationships of power are realistic to expect?

3. How do we feel about groups who are in some senses marginalized, but that within their own community, express dominance in harmful ways against some members of their group or against some members of other groups? What about feminists who look down on specific (or all) religions, and within their group do not tolerate religious individuals? what about religious minorities that persecute LGBTQ individuals? and so forth.

Chetan Murthy 12.30.19 at 6:27 pm ( 98 )
dbk @ 92:

I invite CT commenters to engage in a small thought-experiment: What would it be like in the U.S. if its Gini score were half what it was in 2016 (so, 20 instead of 40+)?

There's been considerable academic work on this subject. Just off the top of my head, there's the seminal paper by Bland, Castile, Crawford, Garner, Martin, Rice et al. And another important study of labor force effects by Argent, Arquette, Beckinsale, Garth, et al. And no literature review would be complete without discussing the groundbreaking work by Boyne, Carroll, Crooks, Harth, Holvey, Zervos et al.

SusanC 12.30.19 at 6:49 pm ( 99 )
An alternative take on what "identity politics" might mean:

A style of politics in which people are people are divided – for the purposes of political organization – on the basis of a small number of characteristics, which initially appear to be relative hard to change and easy to determine. Further, such groups are treated as if they were homogeneous, with a shared political interest.

But:

a) Such characteristics are typically not mutually exclusive. A political group that is "homongenous" wrt to one characteristic may well contain members that differ in some other politically relevant characteristic, with consequent divergence of political objectives. eg. "woman" contains both "white women" and "black women". cf. bell hooks

b) Who is a member of the group and who isn't often turns out to be more vexed than it might initially appear. There exist people of mixed race, people with intersex conditions, transgendered people, white momen who have grown up in a household with African-American step-siblings (cf. Rachel Dolezau), etc. etc. A noted feature of "identity politics" is people getting very, very upset about the existence of a small number of borderline cases whose political group membership is being argued.

soru 12.30.19 at 7:12 pm ( 100 )

Black Lives Matter isn't just fighting for economic rights: they're fighting for the right to not be executed in the street.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter: the very thin definition of the word 'economics' held by certain liberals, mostly referring to the precise timing of the next stock market boom/bust cycle.

To those with a less restrictive definition, people being executed in the street is, absolutely and centrally, a matter of economics. Those who support or enable those executions do so because they do not trust the government to effectively defend their private property rights without such measures.

The radical economic solution to that is the abolition of private property; it is of course perfectly understandable that those most affected are not keen on waiting for that.

Nevertheless, the less radical solution is still economic in nature, mainly involving raising taxes in order to spend the money on a police force adequate to the task of maintaining public order without such executions. Most of Europe provides the existence proof that such a thing is possible.

Measurable social issues require the commitment of non-symbolic amounts of societal resources to solve them. In an ideal world, this would leave the phrase 'identity politics' for those issues which could potentially be resolved by the right person tweeting the right thing

[Jan 01, 2020] Gender critical feminist and other crazies

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

Seren Rose 12.29.19 at 7:20 am (no link)

There is a horror at finding myself – as a gender critical feminist – adjacent to arguments like Likbez's @1 that I think puts the fear of God in me. So I feel compelled to write a comment, though I usually just observe the conversation here.

Likbez @1 is, I think, similar to those people who would pop up in conversations about gay rights in the 90's and say, "What about this man, who had sex with 300 strangers in one week," as an example of "gay rights extremism." The difference I notice here is that there is no longer any concern, on the conservative or progressive side of the argument, with prurient interest. We glibly discuss the most private details of a child's life and body, and it's incumbent on everyone involved to either hash out the details while condemning, or hash out the details while celebrating.

I * do * think a child accessing sterilising medical and surgical treatments for the purposes of gender affirmation is extreme (and to me it's no less extreme when that child has a supportive family around them). Another useful parallel might be the conversations we had about whether it was respectability politics to not include "bareback" subcultures in gay pride. But again, even there, we had a stable liberal position which could acknowledge the subculture / without / having to condemn or celebrate it.

I wonder if it isn't the gay marriage debate that has evacuated that liberal posture. Well might a social conservative answer a question about the decriminalisation of sex between men by saying, "You can engage in x, y, or z sexual practice, but don't expect me to like it," and it's not really remarkable – why would I expect or require a stranger to / like / the sex I have?! But when it's said about marriage there is something mean about it – marriages, or at least weddings, are by definition the communal celebration of a sexual relationship.

Can we as a liberal society tolerate the miserliness of refusal to celebrate gay marriages? And if we can't, what do we do with this blurring of public and private, this need to endorse and celebrate what is done by strangers (even the compulsion to have a clear formed opinion on all the private activities of strangers).

– I wonder if there isn't a further connection with the anxieties of young people, a need for the approval of strangers.

***

"Instead of being accepted as one element of a diverse community, the formerly dominant group becomes the object of hostility and derision. The signs of that are certainly evident, particularly in relation to the culture wars around religion."

I immediately thought John was talking about Catholics. For centuries, where Catholics have lived as a minority in predominantly Protestant and Anglican societies, they have been exposed to all the bigotry and mistreatment we associate with minority status. But this has had no effect on the institution of the Catholic church, or its hegemony in Catholic societies (and even Catholic communities in protestant / Anglican societies).
(On reflection, I'm not sure that's what JQ is referring to at all).

notGoodenough 12.29.19 at 9:38 am ( 68 )
Stephen @ 56

"Good questions. I'm not sure there is a necessity for a default identity and dominant groups; I merely observe that in most if not all stable, long-lived societies there has been such. If you can think of exceptions, they would be very interesting."

As I'm not an expert in the area, I'm probably not a good person to ask. If we assume the observation is true, however, while it may be interesting I don't see that it is particularly helpful.If the number of attempts were zero then that doesn't really tell you anything about if it would work or not.

For example, from my understanding monarchies were the "default" organisational structure in Europe for a long period of history. One can imagine someone who lived during those eras saying – correctly – that most if not all stable, long-lived societies were monarchies. I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't really tell us much about if Monarchies are the only, or indeed even best way of organising a society?

In short, I think that while your observation may be true (I'm afraid I lack the evidence to make any claims one way or another), I don't think it really gets us any closer to understanding whether or not a default identity and/or dominant group are a) necessary, b) useful, and c) beneficial.

As for the default identity including sexuality: I'm not sure it's necessary, just that it mostly goes that way.

Again, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the male/female binary is a) not necessarily biologically supported (from asking biologists) and b) may in fact not be the default identity (I believe there are examples outside of western culture, in the Philippines, Mexico, etc.). Of course, I am not an expert (I believe you've already said your not either?) so perhaps it would be better to ask someone who is rather than us speculating in ignorance?

I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not exclude bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two).

Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being transgender? I don't see that it is helpful or clarifying in any way – bestiality is about what you have sexual intercourse with (and implies a problematic lack of consent), while being transgender is (as the name helpfully implies!) about your personal gender identity (which is not about preferences regarding sexual intercourse, and does not have the problematic inherent consent issue), so these would seem to be very different categories.

[Moreover, and I mean this as a helpful future tip, perhaps if you want to avoid fully any doubts people might have about whether or not you are equating these two things, but you feel it is useful to include a form of sexual attraction, why not pick homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. instead?]

Perhaps I am a bit odd in this respect, but if you ask me to imagine a "default" English person, I don't think I could. It may be a failure of my imagination, but I would think of the people I know who are English, and I don't think there is enough commonality for me to make an assessment. I suspect (though I don't have evidence) that if there is such a thing as a default identity, it is probably most similar to a stereotype. And, as far as I can tell, stereotypes are a) generally not excessively helpful to accuracy and b) vary from area to area and region to region.

Moreover, I would think that "dominant culture" is something that can change (as the OP implies). For example, homosexuality was illegal until fairly recently (if I recall correctly England and Wales: 1960s, Scotland and Ireland 1980s), but I think that now the number of people who would support recriminalizing it is pretty small. The dominant culture which was hostile to homosexuality is now – at the very least – indifferent, if not actively absorbing it. While I certainly wouldn't suggest homophobia is a thing of the past, perhaps in future eras (assuming we don't wipe ourselves out due to our incompetence at handling looming crises) people objecting to homosexuality will be thought of as odd and irrelevant – changing the dominant culture still further. Is it not possible, then, that such a thing could happen with transgender identities?

In short, with respect, I'm not sure what you (or I) can imagine is particularly relevant. Given that neither of us appear to have much expertise in this area, perhaps we should wait for others with better evidence and understanding to way in?

notGoodenough 12.29.19 at 9:41 am ( 69 )
[Blast, apologies to the OP, but could you accept this instead of my previous post, I made a HTML tag error which makes it seem as though one of Stephen's statements is actually mine.]

Stephen @ 56

"Good questions. I'm not sure there is a necessity for a default identity and dominant groups; I merely observe that in most if not all stable, long-lived societies there has been such. If you can think of exceptions, they would be very interesting."

As I'm not an expert in the area, I'm probably not a good person to ask. If we assume the observation is true, however, while it may be interesting I don't see that it is particularly helpful.If the number of attempts were zero then that doesn't really tell you anything about if it would work or not.

For example, from my understanding monarchies were the "default" organisational structure for a long time – and one can imagine someone who lived during those eras saying – correctly – that most if not all stable, long-lived societies were monarchies. I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't really tell us much about if it is the only, or indeed even best way of organising a society?

In short, I think that while your observation may or may not be true (I'm afraid I lack the evidence to make any claims one way or another), I don't think it really gets us any closer to understanding whether or not a default identity and/or dominant group are a) necessary, b) useful, and c) beneficial.

As for the default identity including sexuality: I'm not sure it's necessary, just that it mostly goes that way.

Again, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the male/female binary is a) not necessarily biologically supported (from asking biologists) and b) may in fact not be the default identity (I believe there are examples outside of western culture, in the Philippines, Mexico, etc.). Of course, I am not an expert (I believe you've already said your not either?) so perhaps it would be better to ask someone who is?

I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not exclude bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two).

Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being transgender? I don't see that it is helpful or clarifying in any way – bestiality is about what you have sexual intercourse with (and implies a problematic lack of consent), while being transgender is (as the name helpfully implies!) about your personal gender identity (which is not about preferences regarding sexual intercourse, and does not have the problematic consent issue), so these would seem to be very different categories.

[Moreover, as a helpful future tip, perhaps if you want to avoid fully any doubts people might have about whether or not you are equating these two things, but you feel it is useful to include a form of sexual attraction, why not pick homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. instead?]

Perhaps I am a bit odd in this respect, but if you ask me to imagine a "default" English person, I don't think I could. It may be a failure of my imagination, but I would think of the people I know who are English, and I don't think there is enough commonality for me to make an assessment. I suspect (though I don't have evidence) that if there is such a thing as a default identity, it is probably most similar to a stereotype. And, as far as I can tell, stereotypes are a) generally not excessively helpful to accuracy and b) vary from area to area and region to region.

Moreover, I would think that "dominant culture" is something that can change (as the OP implies). For example, homosexuality was illegal until fairly recently (if I recall correctly England and Wales: 1960s, Scotland and Ireland 1980s), but I think that now the number of people who would support recriminalizing it is pretty small. The dominant culture which was hostile to homosexuality is now – at the very least – indifferent, if not actively absorbing it. While I certainly wouldn't suggest homophobia is a thing of the past, perhaps in future eras (assuming we don't wipe ourselves out due to our incompetence at handling looming crises) people objecting to homosexuality will be thought of as odd and irrelevant – changing the dominant culture still further. Is it not possible, then, that such a thing could happen with transgender identities?

In short, with respect, I'm not sure what you (or I) can imagine is particularly relevant.

faustusnotes 12.29.19 at 11:18 am ( 70 )
Seren Rose, likbez is a straight-up christian fascist. If you find your politics overlapping with his in any way shape or form, it might be a good idea to assess whether the overlapping part is something you want to keep. Here's a tip: if the overlapping part is based on excluding a minority from public spaces, there's probably a reason it appeals to likbez.

Also as a gender critical feminist I'm guessing you are in favour of preventing trans women from using female-only spaces. I recommend you read this so that when natal women start being harassed and beaten up as a consequence of your policies, you can't make the excuse that you weren't warned.

Aubergine 12.29.19 at 2:32 pm ( 71 )
Well, I wasn't going to bring it up, but now we're here

Rightwing trolls or troll-like posters like likbez don't focus on transgender activism by accident. It's the ne plus ultra of identity politics gone wrong: it seems superficially reasonable, by association with LGB liberation movements, but its claims are irreconcilable with long-standing goals of other movements usually found on the left (particularly many kinds of feminism); it demands the use of language that makes it difficult or impossible to express disagreement and harrasses, threatens and deplatforms people who refuse to submit; it is relentlessly, viciously misogynistic. And when otherwise sympathetic people get a glimpse into the nastier side of trans activism and who exactly it is protecting (the Dana Rivers, the Karen Whites, the Jessica Yanivs, etc. etc.), and especially what its goals mean for women and girls – the stuff that the activists try with all their might to stop feminists drawing attention to – they tend to begin to regard it as completely bonkers. Which is of course one reason why all dissent must be silenced before it can spread.

It's the perfect wedge, and the trolls know.

notGoodenough 12.29.19 at 2:53 pm ( 72 )
Likbez @ 60

I am trying very hard right now to give you the benefit of the doubt in your arguments. You haven't addressed any of my criticisms or comments in my post at 36 (fair enough, you don't owe me any answers). I would assume normally you have missed it, didn't think it was worth replying to, or are formulating a response. However, your most recent comments at 60 are, to put it mildly, very problematic.

First, have you got around to making a working definition for transgender extremism yet? I only ask, because if I think religious extremism I imagine beheadings, massacres, suicide bombings; if I imagine political extremism, I imagine violence, bombings, terrorism; but as far as I can tell your definition of transgender extremism is apparently daring to exist and ask maybe if they could be treated as human beings rather than evil incarnate. One of those does not seem like the others.

notGoodenough 12.29.19 at 2:53 pm ( 73 )
Likbez @ 60

Here are my problems with your post at 60. I hope you will at least consider this, and perhaps re-evaluate what you are saying and how you are saying it.

" With this quote I think we reached the point in this discussion when it might be appropriate to discuss the appropriate scope of repression for deviant minority groups when their demands conflict with the larger society or more powerful groups ethics and cultural norms.

"deviant minority groups". OK, so Mormons? Or were they not the deviant minority group you were thinking of? You see, that's one of the fundamental problems with your assertions – you are unable or unwilling to offer any clear ideas as to how you come to decide the term and who it applies to. You seem to operate on what you personally feel comfortable with – which is not a particularly useful starting point.

The usual "woke" argumentation is very weak in issues outlined below and opposite arguments have a real weight: I would repression of the minority groups start with pedophiles and financial oligarchy especially vulture funds leadership such as Romney, Paul Singer, etc. But this is just me.

Funnily enough, people pushing for transgender awareness are not pro-paedophile. I know that you seem to struggle with understanding this (or, indeed, anything judging by your inability to reason), but paedophilia = having sex with children; being transgender = taking on a gender identity in-keeping with your internal model and different to that assigned at birth. The key difference there, and bear with me as apparently you find this very complex, is that one group are raping children, the other isn't. Try repeating this a few times in the mirror – I am optimistic you will eventually get it.

"IMHO insatiable "demanding" and proselyting of transgender identity already brought us very close to a strong corporate and community backlash against transgender rights and by extension LGBT rights as a whole."

You know, people said the same thing about gay rights. And you know what was interesting? It turns out the whole "line to far" was that they existed. Given you haven't really made any attempt to explain why you think "personal medical decision" is functionally extremism, I am not overly confident in your ability to determine what constitutes "too much" demanding.

"Of course transgender folk is just minor, expendable pawn in a bigger game of Dem Party identity politics, but still."

Yes, because the Democratic party of America basically rules Europe. That was sarcasm, by the way. I did point out before that making US based judgements and assessments without considering how it fits into the global phenomena makes you look ignorant. Apparently you don't think that that was a point worth considering.

"Many Christian parents now prohibit their children to join Scouts of America and their fears and not unfounded ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/04/24/boy-scouts-face-hundreds-new-sexual-abuse-claims/3547991002/ )"

Again, when discussing transgender people, you start bringing in sexual abuse with children. Yet no-where in the article is any reference to transgender people. I am now a lot less optimistic in your ability to understand the difference. It is also worth considering that the Catholic Church – which arguably has a little more power and privilege than the LGBT – has been complicit in covering up a horrific amount of child-rape. Interestingly, you don't seem to be railing against them.

To summarise

You don't seem interested in researching anything or gaining any facts. You don't appear to consider other arguments. You repeatedly conflate transgender people with paedophiles. You don't support your arguments, don't define your terms, and don't seem to care whether or not anything you say is rooted in evidence.

This is why I am having a very hard job considering you someone who is arguing in good faith right now.

notGoodenough 12.29.19 at 2:58 pm ( 74 )
Likbez @ 60

Finally, as a few comments I hope you will consider.

1) Paedophilia and transgender people

The reason I object to paedophiles is not because they are a small number of people who are different to me. I object to paedophiles because they are causing harm. They are causing harm, because they are committing an action (sex) with someone who cannot give consent (a child).

Transgender people are committing an act (adopting a different gender identity) which affects only themselves (who give consent because they are undertaking it).

If you do not make a case to link transgender people and child rape, I would appreciate if you stopped conflating the two. Even if I assume the absolute best case – that you don't think the two are the same but are trying to incoherently make a point – it makes for a completely incoherent argument to include here.

2) Transgender people in society

If you want to argue that transgender people should be denied privileges available to other people, that is your prerogative. But you should probably actually make a case, and try to support it with evidence. For example, if you could prove that people being allowed to determine their own gender is objectively bad in some way, that would be a good starting point. You don't though – and, though I try to avoid ascribing motivations to other people, I suspect it is because you don't actually have an argument that it is harmful – merely that you don't like it. And apparently, for you, "I don't like this" is a good reason to deny rights to one group of people you extend to others. It might be worth reflecting on what that says about you as a person.

3) likbez

When someone repeatedly refuses to make their case after adopting the burden of proof, it is very difficult to take them seriously on that topic. It also impacts how you precieve them on other topics.

You don't owe me anything, and if you wish to continue making unsupported statements, falacious arguments, and equivication falacies, by all means do continue. I won't however, consider you as someone who should be considered worth listening to – which I hope you'd agree is my prerogative.

William Timberman 12.29.19 at 3:03 pm ( 75 )
Undiscovering America. It's too late for that, I think. The muddying of the waters, i.e. post-historical tribalism, can't obscure the fact that the underlying conflict is between our individual and our collective identity(ies). It doesn't really matter whether the collective is family, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sports team. If we aren't, as individuals, the ultimate arbiters of our own allegiances, and if the collective(s) we belong to, either by accident, affinity, or choice, are unwilling to give up on the project of defining us without asking us what we prefer, then our present conflicts will continue, and in all likelihood get nastier as the stakes in our-post hierarchical, post-literate universe rise ever higher.
William Timberman 12.29.19 at 3:13 pm ( 76 )
I should probably add that China's much-touted ignoble experiment in Gleichschaltung is going to introduce modes of historical failure which the world hasn't seen since Roman times. Xi Jinping has absolutely no effing idea of the doom he's trifling with. Compared to Donald Rumsfeld, I suppose you could call him a visionary, but only if you love the smell of apocalypse in the morning.
notGoodenough 12.29.19 at 3:35 pm ( 77 )
Seren Rose @ 67

I've no wish to tell you "this is how you should think", and am open to having a dialogue with anyone who is interested in doing so (it helps me refine my position or, when I am wrong, to re-evaluate my premises). I hope, therefore, you'll be will to indulge me a little when I make the following comments – I would, if you are interested, value your thoughts (though I don't wish to make demands on your time).

I don't particularly enjoy discussing anyone's private details – I generally prefer it if private lives can remain private – and certainly would hope I don't do so glibly. Unfortunately, when there is a discussion about whether or not a person should be permitted to make a private decision, sometimes it is necessary to discuss the facts surrounding the case. I would state, however, that to me it is important that as much anonymity as possible is afforded the individual, and as little of the details are discussed as necessary. Do you think that that is unreasonable?

My first comments were regarding Likbez's first link. To me, it is not only the first mentioned, but also the most clear cut. Someone who is 17 wishes to transition, their mother (who they have alleged was abusive, whom they left 2 years ago) objects. Given that the individual seems to have made well-reasoned comments, their mother does not seem to be well-placed to make any evaluations (or indeed make any decisions regarding their child), and I have no reason to think they are unable to make an assessment regarding their own gender, I don't see any reason to object. Do you think there is?

Hopefully you'll agree that I have managed to avoid discussing them or their body too much. If not, I'd certainly appreciate it if you pointed out where I've erred – this is not sarcasm, I genuinely want to do better.

You appear to have considerable concerns regarding Likbez's second link. You know what – so do I. It isn't quite as portrayed – further reading indicates that what was proposed was a reversible treatment with no surgery, which allays some of the concerns – but I agree that "what age can someone make a reasonable decision regarding their gender" is a good discussion to have. As is, "what is the best way to handle this", and "how do we ensure that people are afforded freedom proporitionate with their maturity and responsibility". However, I would want such a discussion to involve evidence (not specific details of people, but anonymised scientific evidence), logical arguments, and conclusions which come as close as possible to achieving the best decision. I hope you would agree that that is a good approach?

Now, I am not an expert. However, as far as I can tell, the people who study this for a living seem to say that biology and gender are far more complex that traditional models allow for. That being the case, it does not seem unreasonable to change these models. After all, if you are worried about the effects of peer-pressure on children, I would think that being forced into an identity which causes you incredible discomfort (or even feelings of dissonance) is probably not good for their long term health. For example, trying to force people who are homosexual to be heterosexual does not seem to have been good for them, or for society. I imagine, as a gender critical feminist, you can think of similar examples of the harm resulting from women being forced into roles far better than I.

In short, my position is that people should be afforded the maximum reasonable ability to make their personal decisions. In cases where there are concerns regarding their ability to do so, I am fine with society coming to an evidence based conclusion about where to draw the line. This will, as always, lead to some inherent unfairness (our systems are "one-size-fits-all" and this will inherently lead to some people being let down), but hopefully we can make our society as fair as possible. And, continue to refine.

If you think I am being unreasonable, unnecessarily prurient, or am on a path which is detrimental, I would certainly appreciate your pointing it out to me – I am always keen to do better.

likbez 12.29.19 at 3:54 pm ( 78 )
faustusnotes 12.29.19 at 11:18 am @.70

Here's a tip: if the overlapping part is based on excluding a minority from public spaces, there's probably a reason it appeals to likbez.

Imbecilization of discussion of controversial issues like in case of your comment is a normal development typical for the periods of intellectual declines which naturally follows the economic decline of a given empire.

There's growing evidence the West is going through the same process as the USSR.

Orange Watch 12.29.19 at 5:23 pm ( 79 )
CM@64 :

the history is pretty clear: the class-based movements cane first, and they failed to make any progress toward (or even care about) the rights of these oppressed groups. [ ] Also, many of these movements explicitly recognize the importance of intersectionality -- why else would you see feminists and gay rights groups so heavily involved in immigrant rights?

Well, since you're all about fairness and avoiding double standards let's compare contemporaneous movements. How much did abolitionists help alleviate the oppression of women? How much did suffragettes fight segregation? Did the LGBTQ rights movement include BTQ for most of its history? Did any of these historical movements fight against ablism? How much did they achieve WRT immigrant rights, indigenous rights, and the rights of minority religions? Or are you comparing very, VERY recent developments in these movements with historical class identity movements? I'd point out, BTW, that it's very disputable whether gender/racial right movements came after class identity movements – both are far older than their recent (to say nothing of modern) forms. And throughout the history of all of these, there have been not just unhelpful but actively repressive elements in all of them. Yet you're only comparing contemporary intersectional essentialist identity politics to historical class identity politics why is that? Especially when modern class identity politics are also influenced by intersectional thinking and ally themselves with more than than just class-based movements even if they prioritize class. Yet here we have you telling us that socioeconomic status is not an identity – that the idea of identity becomes meaningless if we consider it as such. That has a very particular and somewhat suspicious look.

To pull this back more closely to the subject of OP, your pile of unexamined privilege looks an awful lot like you're uncritically accepting the highly-educated/rich/socially & professionally networked/managerial-professional-executive workers' (i.e., upper class) "default" cultural perspective, and are insisting that failure to see it is deviant and immoral (no more and no less than a cis het white Xian man insisting that a mythical 1950s represents the objective reality of Americanism). The rich minority is dominate in that epistomology, and the managerial-professional minority is deferred to. Among lower-class conservative adherents, this translates to education being suspect, but wealth & social status is taken as proof that these classes are reliably jus'folks who haven't been corrupted by too much learning; among lower-class liberal adherents, wealth is suspect but the education & social status proves our elites are woke egalitarians who haven't been corrupted by greed and power but in both cases, the rich are dominant and the managerial-professionals are deferred to. 100 years ago this would have been a harder sell, as our culture was more disparate in terms of class identity, but mass media driven by consumption (and advertising) homogenized our worldview and humanized the rich to a great degree, with the result of aggressively encouraging the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mindset and belief in the myth of meritocracy.

The point of everything you TL;DR'd in order to lecture me about How Things REALLY Are again was not that you're a hypocrite – it's instead how very telling it is that you don't simply want to de-prioritize the idea of economically-oriented reform, but de-legitimize the very idea of it. It's appalling to see you invoke intersectionality in this context; are you so come-lately to it that you don't know its history before it was housebroken? A common early criticism of intersectionality was that it placed too much focus on just three intersecting identities: gender, race, and, yes, class. The subsequent trend to view intersectionality as a thing distinct from class identity is a development that looks an awful lot like institutional co-opting as former outsiders addressing an insurgent critique of distorted elite analysis made peace with the academic hierarchy, got tenure, and mysteriously lost their impetus to challenge privilege based on wealth, education, profession, or social status. What you've done here has unintentionally been extremely instructive in terms of what OP discusses; you're providing a case study of a privileged minority arguing against perspectives that do not conform to the dominant default culture in order to protect the deference you feel due, and the dominance of the hierarchy which entitles you to that deference.

Chetan Murthy 12.29.19 at 5:43 pm ( 80 )
Seren Rose @ 67:
You write about a lot of things, and some of them I don't feel qualified to comment upon. But at least this, seems pretty obvious:

Can we as a liberal society tolerate the miserliness of refusal to celebrate gay marriages? And if we can't, what do we do with this blurring of public and private

The record here is pretty clear: gay marriage advocates fought for gay marriage not for the private celebration, but because in ways big and small, myriad public and publicly regulated institutions and organizations confer advantages upon the married. From family health insurance policies to "who gets to visit you as you lie dying," to "who gets to pick up your kids at school."

I think this is a good example of the way that demands by identity groups can get misinterpreted, either inadvertently or intentionally. Nobody asked for Evangelical pastors to be compelled to perform gay marriages. What they -did- ask, was that in any public accommodation or regulated business of any sort, that prefers advantages to married couples, this advantage be extended to gay couples who are married. And this is no different from the "full faith and credit" clause that makes marriages in one state valid in another.

Orange Watch 12.29.19 at 5:51 pm ( 81 )
(One thing I'd add to tie the idea of class identity politics to the discussion here is that contemporary upper class resistance to it vs. comparative upper class acceptance of essentialist identity politics fits well into the zero-sum vs. positive-sum distinction made by Peter Dorman . Class identity movements seek to flatten the socio-economic hierarchy via wealth redistribution, progessive taxation, increased democratization of political processes, etc. Essentialist identity movements do not directly threaten the hierarchy that entrenches the rich as dominant and professionals as deferred to – it changes the pool of available candidates within the heirarchy, which may lead to individuals or sub-groups resisting if they feel unable or unwilling to compete with individuals previously below them on other hierarchies, but more diversity in the C-suites is not an existential threat to the upper class.)
Chetan Murthy 12.29.19 at 5:54 pm ( 82 )
notGoodEnough @ 68:
Stephen: "I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not exclude bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two)."

notGoodEnough: "Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being transgender?"

I have to laugh. We both know why he included that reference, don't we? It's the same reason "Box Turtle Ben (Domenech)" included it in that speech that Texas Senator John Cornyn was to deliver ("It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife"). It's the same reason likbez pretends that pedophiles are an identity group like gay people.

Decent people must feel that bestiality and pedophilia are beyond the pale. By juxtaposing them with LGBT, the goal is to subtly induce decent people to associate their feelings of disgust toward (e.g.) sex with box turtles, and gay people and oh-so-icky ways.

It's a tell that Stephen hasn't got a tolerant bone in his body.

Jake Gibson 12.29.19 at 9:01 pm ( 83 )
TBH, likbez seems to be regurgitating typical transphobic arguments. Linking to homophobic hate groups does not enhance his position.
He/she clearly does not think that trans people have any rights that he is obligated to honor.
On the other hand, seems to expect that we are obligated to respect his bigotry.
John Quiggin 12.29.19 at 10:10 pm ( 84 )
likbez, you've derailed the thread, and your comments are trolling at best. Nothing further from you on this thread, please. Also, if I write further on identity politics, please refrain from commenting.

[Jan 01, 2020] Nationalism is transforming the politics of the British Isles its power as a vehicle for discontent grows ever stronger The

Dec 25, 2019 | independent.co.uk

The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the world

Patrick Cockburn | @indyworld |

Nationalism in different shapes and forms is powerfully transforming the politics of the British Isles, a development that gathered pace over the last five years and culminated in the general election this month.

National identities and the relationship between England, Scotland and Ireland are changing more radically than at any time over the last century. It is worth looking at the British archipelago as a whole on this issue because of the closely-meshed political relationship of its constituent nations. Some of these developments are highly visible such as the rise of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to permanent political dominance in Scotland in the three general elections since the independence referendum in 2014.

Other changes are important but little commented on, such as the enhanced national independence and political influence of the Republic of Ireland over the British Isles as a continuing member of the EU as the UK leaves. Dublin's greater leverage when backed by the other 26 EU states was repeatedly demonstrated, often to the surprise and dismay of London, in the course of the negotiations in Brussels over the terms of the British withdrawal.

Northern Ireland saw more nationalist than unionist MPs elected in the general election for the first time since 1921. This is important because it is a further sign of the political impact of demographic change whereby Catholics/nationalists become the new majority and the Protestants/unionists the minority. The contemptuous ease with which Boris Johnson abandoned his ultra-unionist pledges to the DUP and accepted a customs border in the Irish Sea separating Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain shows how little loyalty the Conservatives feel towards the northern unionists and their distinct and abrasive brand of British nationalism.

These developments affecting four of the main national communities inhabiting the British Isles – Irish, nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, Scots – are easy to track. Welsh nationalism is a lesser force. Much more difficult to trace and explain is the rise of English nationalism because it is much more inchoate than these other types of nationalism, has no programme, and is directly represented by no political party – though the Conservative Party has moved in that direction.

The driving force behind Brexit was always a certain type of English nationalism which did not lose its power to persuade despite being incoherent and little understood by its critics and supporters alike. In some respects, it deployed the rhetoric of any national community seeking self-determination. The famous Brexiteer slogan "take back control" is not that different in its implications from Sinn Fein – "Ourselves Alone" – though neither movement would relish the analogy.

The great power of the pro-Brexit movement, never really taken on board by its opponents, was to blame the very real sense of disempowerment and social grievances felt by a large part of the English population on Brussels and the EU. This may have been scapegoating on a grandiose scale, but nationalist movements the world over have targeted some foreign body abroad or national minority at home as the source of their ills. I asked one former Leave councillor – one of the few people I met who changed their mind on the issue after the referendum in 2016 – why people living in her deprived ward held the EU responsible for their poverty. Her reply cut through many more sophisticated explanations: "I suppose that it is always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner."

Applying life lessons to the pursuit of national happiness The Tories won't get far once progressives join forces 22,000 EU nationals have left NHS since Brexit vote, figures show This crude summary of the motives of many Leave voters has truth in it, but it is a mistake to caricature English nationalism as simply a toxic blend of xenophobia, racism, imperial nostalgia and overheated war memories. In the three years since the referendum the very act of voting for Brexit became part of many people's national identity, a desire to break free, kicking back against an overmighty bureaucracy and repelling attempts by the beneficiaries of globalisation to reverse a democratic vote.

The political left in most countries is bad at dealing with nationalism and the pursuit of self-determination. It sees these as a diversion from identifying and attacking the real perpetrators of social and economic injustice. It views nationalists as mistakenly or malignly aiming at the wrong target – usually foreigners – and letting the domestic ones off the hook.

The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the world. It can only be ignored at great political cost, as the Labour Party has just found out to its cost for the fifth time (two referendums and three elections). What Labour should have done was early on take over the slogan "take back control" and seek to show that they were better able to deliver this than the Conservatives or the Brexit Party. There is no compelling reason why achieving such national demands should be a monopoly of the right. But in 2016, 2017 and 2019 Labour made the same mistake of trying to wriggle around Brexit as the prime issue facing the English nation without taking a firm position, an evasion that discredited it with both Remainers and Leavers.

Curiously, the political establishment made much the same mistake as Labour in underestimating and misunderstanding the nature of English nationalism. Up to the financial crisis of 2008 globalisation had been sold as a beneficial and inevitable historic process. Nationalism was old hat and national loyalties were supposedly on the wane. To the British political class, the EU obviously enhanced the political and economic strength of its national members. As beneficiaries of the status quo, they were blind to the fact that much of the country had failed to gain from these good things and felt marginalised and forgotten.

The advocates of supra-national organisations since the mediaeval papacy have been making such arguments and have usually been perplexed why they fail to stick. They fail to understand the strength of nationalism or religion in providing a sense of communal solidarity, even if it is based on dreams and illusions, that provides a vehicle for deeply felt needs and grievances. Arguments based on simple profit and loss usually lose out against such rivals.

Minervo , 1 day ago

Bigger by far are two forces which really do have control over our country -- the international NATO warmongers but even more so, the international banksters of the finance industry.

Why no 'leftist' campaign to Take Back Control of our money? Gordon Brown baled out the banks when they should have gone bankrupt and been nationalised.

Blair is forever tainted with his ill-fated Attack on Iraq. Surely New Liberals or Democrats or Socialists would want to lock down on that fiasco?

The Nationalism of taking back control could be a leftist project too.

[Jan 01, 2020] AI is just a tool, unless it is developed to the point of attaining sentience in which case it becomes slavery, but let's ignore that possibility for now. Capitalists cannot make profits from the tools they own all by the tools themselves. Profits come from unpaid labor. You cannot underpay a tool, and the tool cannot labor by itself.

Jan 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Paul Damascene , Dec 29 2019 1:28 utc | 45

vk @38: "...the reality on the field is that capitalism is 0 for 5..."

True, but it is worse than that! Even when we get AI to the level you describe, capitalism will continue its decline.

Henry Ford actually understood Marxist analysis. Despite what many people in the present imagine, Ford had access to sufficient engineering talent to make his automobile manufacturing processes much more automated than he did. Ford understood that improving the efficiency of the manufacturing process was less important than creating a population with sufficient income to purchase his products.

AI is just a tool, unless it is developed to the point of attaining sentience in which case it becomes slavery, but let's ignore that possibility for now. Capitalists cannot make profits from the tools they own all by the tools themselves. Profits come from unpaid labor. You cannot underpay a tool, and the tool cannot labor by itself.

The AI can be a product that is sold, but compared with cars, for example, the quantity of labor invested in AI is minuscule. The smaller the proportion of labor that is in the cost of a product, the smaller the percent of the price that can be realized as profit. To re-boost real capitalist profits you need labor-intensive products. This also ties in with Henry Ford's understanding of economics in that a larger labor force also means a larger market for the capitalist's products.

There are some very obvious products that I can think of involving AI that are also massively labor-intensive that would match the scale of the automotive industry and rejuvenate capitalism, but they would require many $millions in R&D to make them market-ready. Since I want capitalism to die already and get out Re: AI --
Always wondered how pseudo-AI, or enhanced automation, might be constrained by diminishing EROEI.

Unless an actual AI were able to crack the water molecule to release hydrogen in an energy-efficient way, or unless we learn to love nuclear (by cracking the nuclear waste issue), then it seems to me hyper-automated workplaces will be at least as subject to plummeting EROEI as are current workplaces, if not moreso. Is there any reason to think that, including embedded energy in their manufacture, these machines and their workplaces will be less energy intensive than current ones?

[Jan 01, 2020] "Freedom gas" named Worst Words of the Year

Jan 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mao , Dec 30 2019 9:03 utc | 48

"Freedom gas" named Worst Words of the Year

Plain English Foundation has voted freedom gas as the worst word or phrase of 2019.

The term comes from the United States Department of Energy, which rebranded natural gas as "freedom gas" and boasted about bringing molecules of US freedom to the world.

"When a simple product like natural gas starts being named through partisan politics, we are entering dangerous terrain," said the Foundation's Executive Director, Dr Neil James. "Why can't natural gas just remain natural gas?"

Each year, Plain English Foundation gathers dozens of examples of the worst words to highlight the importance of clear and ethical public language.

The full list of 2019's worst words and phrases follows.

https://www.plainenglishfoundation.com/documents/10179/636280/2019_Worst_Words_media_release

[Jan 01, 2020] Twitter Scrubs Viral Trump Retweet Of Alleged Hoaxblower's Name

Jan 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.

" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations," read the tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a "100% Trump supporter."

Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call between Trump and with his Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.

Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer visible in his Twitter feed.

When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage with one of our systems."

Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's name-retweet from Trump's timeline. Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline. When asked for clarification, Twitter said this: https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf

-- Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) December 29, 2019

By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the user, @Surfermom77, was banned from the platform .

Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows some indications of automation , including an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet."

Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent profile picture on the account, for instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire that is available for use online.

Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the account was activated in 2013. Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology firm that tracks online misinformation. - WaPo

Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom responded to whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made "hostile" comments - after she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to impeachment witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.

It's pretty simple. The CIA "whistleblower" is not a real whistleblower! https://t.co/z6bjGaFCSH pic.twitter.com/RHhkY1BGei

-- FOLLOW Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TrumpWarRoom) December 26, 2019

As the Washington Times notes, "This week, it was revealed that conservative organization Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request in November for the communications of Ciaramella, a 33-year-old CIA analyst who is alleged to be the whistleblower."

"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI attorney Lisa Page."


Wahooo , 12 minutes ago link

No one likes a rat

Deep Snorkeler , 39 minutes ago link

Trump Makes The Joker Look Normal

We are a Christian Nation, but it's a myth.

We are an empire, without a military success.

Every country is a threat, every friend an enemy.

Americans hate Americans, most of all.

America, a humorous exaggeration of Rome.

Is-Be , 31 minutes ago link

The USA is an over-confident teenager.

SweetDoug , 40 minutes ago link

'

'

Deep Snorkeler , 1 hour ago link

The American Empire Has Reached a Dead End

despair and spiritual decay

paranoia and mistrust and hysteria

slow and vulnerable - - -

Led by the Lawrence Welk of Washington,

Don Trump.

[Jan 01, 2020] Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power, which requires over-reproduction and/or over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot), whenever systemic constraints allow it. Differential power generation and accumulation result in a hierarchical group structure.

Jan 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tim E. , Dec 29 2019 4:45 utc | 59

"I don't think there's any actual material reason that there should be any material wants anywhere on this planet, instead "only" political and managerial ones but that's because I believe (and I'm not an expert) one can add additional levels of safeguards -- both physical and administrative -- to existing or new nuclear power-plants and "burn" most of the byproducts into essentially new fuel thus buying humanity at least several thousands of years of time instead of for example chopping up large volumes of air and everything in it be it insects or birds.

We should already be in a post-scarcity world, no -isms required, only kindness and applied knowledge. So to me that will be our death sentence if that is the final outcome; too little kindness (towards all life), too little application and sharing of knowledge.

I don't know if that is inspiring or depressing or both :)"

I always find those thoughts scary - since you and I are both NOT Farmers - and depend upon those little people to supply us with the foodstuffs we need to survive.

It's GREAT to be a rocket scientist - but before a rocket scientist can exist - ya need Farmers.

Jay Hanson and Richard Duncan said it best:

http://www.dieoff.com/

Here is a synopsis of the behavioral loop described above:

Step 1. Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power, which requires over-reproduction and/or over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot), whenever systemic constraints allow it. Differential power generation and accumulation result in a hierarchical group structure.

Step 2. Energy is always limited, and overshoot eventually leads to decreasing power available to some members of the group, with lower-ranking members suffering first.

Step 3. Diminishing power availability creates divisive subgroups within the original group. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals, who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain power.

Step 4. Violent social strife eventually occurs among subgroups who demand a greater share of the remaining power.

Step 5. The weakest subgroups (high or low rank) are either forced to disperse to a new territory, are killed, enslaved, or imprisoned.

Step 6. Go back to step 1.

The above loop was repeated countless thousands of times during the millions of years that we were evolving[9]. This behavior is inherent in the architecture of our minds -- is entrained in our biological material -- and will be repeated until we go extinct. Carrying capacity will decline[10] with each future iteration of the overshoot loop, and this will cause human numbers to decline until they reach levels not seen since the Pleistocene.

Current models used to predict the end of the biosphere suggest that sometime between 0.5 billion to 1.5 billion years from now, land life as we know it will end on Earth due to the combination of CO2 starvation and increasing heat. It is this decisive end that biologists and planetary geologists have targeted for attention. However, all of their graphs reveal an equally disturbing finding: that global productivity will plummet from our time onward, and indeed, it already has been doing so for the last 300 million years.[11]

It's impossible to know the details of how our rush to extinction will play itself out, but we do know that it is going to be hell for those who are unlucky to be alive at the time.

And:

The Olduvai theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production and population. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030. After more than a century of strong growth -- energy production per capita peaked in 1979. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. Moreover, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years. This analysis predicts that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an 'epidemic' of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks -- worldwide.

http://dieoff.com/page234.pdf


Will Humans reach the Stars? I believe NOT - and that extinction is but a heart beat away. We are not a Peaceful species - amongst many others - but the Universe lives in Harmony.

See: https://etheric.com/om-the-cosmic-vibration/

and:

https://etheric.com/continuous-creation-cosmology/

[Jan 01, 2020] Worst Market In 30 Years - 400,000 Commodity Railcars Sit Idle Amid Industrial Recession

Jan 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Wells Fargo, Citigroup, PNC Financial Service Group, and CIT Group accumulated hundreds of thousands of commodity hauling railcars in North America over the last decade. These banks believed railcars carrying coal, grain, and other commodities were going to be highly profitable but have recently turned out to be a major headache as many cars are now in storage because of new regulations and demand woes brought on by fluctuating commodity markets.

David Nahass, president of Railroad Financial Corp., which provides advisory services to railroad firms, told The Wall Street Journa l that "the industry is suffering, there are no two ways about it. Lease rates are down, and there's not a source of hope about when it will start to improve."

The Journal, citing the Association of American Railroads (AAR), said about 400,000 railcars currently sit in storage with no use at all, and many are bank-owned.


woodknot , 13 seconds ago link

Lost the pipeline war, eat your rail cars Buffett.

Juggernaut x2 , 1 minute ago link

Overproduction due to ultra-low rates - another way 10 years of the Fed's ZIRP has distorted the Business Cycle

BEMUSED-CONFUSED , 4 minutes ago link

Clean the railroad cars out

turn them into homeless centers.

Like in the movie:

Boxcar Bertha.

bshirley1968 , 6 minutes ago link

"The railroad crisis has hit certain types of railcars the hardest. For instance, coal shipments have plunged since 2011, which diminished the demand for coal hopper cars."

I thought Trump was going to save the coal industry. He carried his largest wins in WV and WY. Somebody's not happy.

[Jan 01, 2020] Gig workers getting screwed

Jan 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

c1ue , Dec 29 2019 16:19 utc | 3

Gig workers getting screwed. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it - the modern gig economy is nothing more than the "putting out" system redux from the early days of the industrial revolution.
And much like the looms and thread from the putting out system, the owners control pricing for gig workers as well as cut off any possibility of upward advancement.
Vice article on gig workers
Note this isn't one company - it is all of them. When Uber first started, they were paying over $1/mile for drivers - it is now down to $0.60. Equally, the various other gig startups pay more to lure workers in, then cut when they need/want to.
When she initially joined Instacart a year ago, Dorton says she could earn up to $800 during a 40 hour workweek picking up groceries at Costco and Sam's Club and dropping them off at customers' homes. But in recent months, her weekly income has fallen to $400 for 60 hours of grocery shopping. "I made more delivering pizza and waiting tables," Dorton told Motherboard.

Yes, but with the delivery services contributing to the everlasting restaurant crunch, there are fewer jobs delivering pizza and waiting tables. That's a feature.

[Jan 01, 2020] 'Predatory capitalism' is disproportionately Jewish.

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

Amerimutt Golems says: December 19, 2019 at 1:04 pm GMT 200 Words @Lot

The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders, probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.

The author is not a finance expert but he correctly spotlights flaws of so-called 'predatory capitalism' which is disproportionately Jewish.

Private equity is rife with vices like asset-stripping and looting e.g Eddie Lampert ('Jewishness' member) plus El Trumpo appointee Steven Mnuchin at Sears.

Vulture funds often load all sorts of costs, even frivolous ones, and extra interest charges on the original debt to maximize profit.

Some countries have the Duplum rule which limits the amount you are liable to a creditor when you default on a debt.

Sears accuses Eddie Lampert of looting the company
https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/sears-accuses-eddie-lampert-of-looting-the-company/

[Jan 01, 2020] When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind the merger.

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

Robjil , says: December 19, 2019 at 6:56 pm GMT

@Robjil ssociates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder vote on the Lee's planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am said:

"We should score a victory by a big margin in the first battle, in order to take the upper hand in a looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term gains in the domestic market."

When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind the merger.

[Jan 01, 2020] Karl Marx analysis of vulture behaviour of Jewish financiers remains pretty sound

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

secondElijah , says: Website December 19, 2019 at 1:10 pm GMT

@J Adelman perpetual victim .everyone hates me without a reason. My sin is greater than I can bear (Cain) everyone who comes across me will kill me. I spend my time wandering the earth (boo ho). And despite slaying your brother you are accorded divine protection.

Jesus said (paraphrasing here) that if the unclean spirit is cast out of a man and is not replaced with something wholesome he takes "seven other spirits" into himself and becomes totally insane. You did this to yourself and you will realize that your problem is no longer with man but with God himself. Jacob the deceiver has wrestled all his life against his fellow man and triumphed but now he will confront God himself. Get ready to meet your Maker and see how far your excuses will get you with the Almighty.

J.W. , says: December 19, 2019 at 1:39 pm GMT
@J Adelman nder. Jewish business behavior has a retarding effect on societies. It's prominent, large, rapacious and extremely selfish.

As long as Jews made their money then fuck everybody else.

Yes, it's unfair when innocent Jews suffer. When the actions of other members of it's DNA choose schemes and dishonorable ways to make money it's going to happen.

Stop acting like innocent victims all the time. This narcissistic stance might explain why Jews are hated seemingly everywhere. Relationships with narcissists are no fun and the means necessary to break free are often hurtful and unfortunate for everyone involved.

Hapalong Cassidy , says: December 19, 2019 at 1:44 pm GMT

No mention of Mitt Romney's vulture fund Bain Capital? The one that destroyed Toys R Us, among others?

BannedHipster , says: Website December 19, 2019 at 2:21 pm GMT

It's a simple ingroup/outgroup distinction.

Jews see themselves as the ingroup, and the "goyim" as the outgroup. Since Whites are the "outgroup" it's not just acceptable, but praiseworthy, to exploit them. To "beat" them at war.

The problem is that Whites wrongly do not see Jews as an outgroup – something that Jews themselves take great pains to discourage via their various front groups like the ADL.

There is no "technical" fix, there is no objective "system" that can change this dynamic. There is no "level playing field."

Whites need to ostracize Jews at all levels. Boycott, Divest and Sanction – not just their apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine, but at every level of society, business, civil institutions, etc.

Realist , says: December 19, 2019 at 2:22 pm GMT
@Ghali

Jews are destroying the world. Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins. Look at Europe, Africa and the Americas, Jews have left their ugly footprints. Corruption, prostitution, drugs and human trafficking are their trade.

Greed from all races is the problem.

BannedHipster , says: Website December 19, 2019 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Just passing through obs time and time again throughout their history, to the point bishops and priests would harbor Jews in the cathedrals and lock the doors before the peasants could arrest them.

Indeed, the infighting among Whites promoted by the likes of Jones is yet again another assist from Catholic powers to their partners, the Jews.

The popular "neo-reactionary/NRx" movement, started by the Ashkenazi Curtis Yarvin, is yet another "right-wing" fad that blames Calvinists for all the problems in the world. Jews are blameless, yet again another White ethnicity/religion is at fault.

No wonder Jews get away with what they do. Whites are too busy infighting over false history demonizing various rival cults.

Really No Shit , says: December 19, 2019 at 2:35 pm GMT

So, the "vultures" flew out to the West after devouring the Russian empire and now with the help of the likes of the homeboy or more like a two bit whore, Ben Sasse, they've descended on America and have started gutting it out.

Where will they fly next? White Christians don't want them and black/brown Muslims can't stand them but perhaps China is their next destination being that they have shipped most of the jobs out there and the whole lot of them are marrying "Chinese-American" women in droves for good measure.

In the coming battle of the titans, the one who's name can't be pronounced, viz. Yahweh, hopefully has better guns than Jehovah and Allah, for it sure is gonna need it when the latter two gang up on it maybe Buddha will give it a helping hand being that they're practically in-laws now!

Arnieus , says: December 19, 2019 at 2:37 pm GMT

Don't think the US will fair better than Puerto Rico when the fake money dries up and there is no way to keep paying the trillions in debt.

Just passing through , says: December 19, 2019 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Father O'Hara ians and Chinese (South Asians) are the richest in both countries (except for Jews of course).

What I have found is that these two groups come from a debt-averse culture, their kids actually live with their parents until they have saved enough money for a house and other such things required to start a family.

Whites meanwhile are WAY to trusting of these faceless financial institutions, they get into debt very easily and thus become slaves, if you have kids, the first thing you should educate them about is finance and debt, don't throw them out to the dogs either, it's tragic to see some getting into debt and then having other problems like drugs and alcohol addictions.

Satan Became President , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:03 pm GMT

Wow what a confused mess. Here's a summary: Vulture capitalism is bad for no particular reason but only an evil anti-Semite (like you) would dare criticize capitalism.

Mulegino1 , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:14 pm GMT

I think the term "vulture capitalism" is calumnious to vultures, who, as carrion birds, perform a useful and purifying function in nature.

The Jews as a collective, i.e., the Jews who identify as such, concur in the death sentence of Christ handed down by their Sanhedrin and espouse the Talmudic mitzvah of killing the best of the gentiles (which naturally implies elevating the worst of the gentiles to power and prominence) are more to be likened to plague bearing rodents. Unlike vultures, rats feast on corruption and putrescence, spread disease and also kill the living.

We embrace the finance capitalist worldview at our peril. In its essence, it is nothing but the worship of money making and profiteering as the supreme aspiration of life, irregardless of its horrible effects on our compatriots and fellow humans. In doing so, we become Jews at heart.

There is nothing wrong with industry and the profit motive per se. Predatory finance contributes nothing to the well being of a nation and the needs of the physical economy- it is supremely toxic and corrosive of both. It must be expunged and its champions expropriated and exiled. People like the odious Peter Singer have no place in a moral world; they ought to be first expropriated, then exiled as far away from their host societies as possible.

Happy Tapir , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:18 pm GMT

I was personally wounded by the anti gay rhetoric peppered across this article. I can't help making the association that Paul singer's son came out as gay and that this must be the source of the author's animus against him and the others. Shakespeare, who was also homosexual, described this state of mind as "a green eyed monster," i.e. jealousy. I'm mortified that other members of the commentariat have not taken issue with this. Maybe we would be more compassionate to the denizens of middle America if they allowed our most basic civil rights.

Bookish1 , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:19 pm GMT
@J Adelman

Oh those kind jews have always been for the working class? But there is a white working class and jews want them extinct from the face of the earth. Read 'Abolishing whiteness has never been more urgent.' By Mark Levine

Jimmy1969 , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:23 pm GMT
@Arnieus

China will then try to take us and Israel will make a deal with the winner.

jack daniels , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:25 pm GMT
@silviosilver ors to default was CAUSED BY the big Wall Street firms' irresponsible behavior.

Also, most people do tend to temper economic contracts with a degree of compassion. Gentile capitalism does not exist in a vacuum.

I recall reading about a young female environmentalist who was refusing to leave a venerable redwood tree that was scheduled to be cut down. The WASP businessman who owned the tree was extremely patient with the girl, tried to win her over, threw her food and drinks, and so on. The land with the tree was then sold to some Jewish firm. At that point the article left off. The tree was cut down with no further negotiation.

Desert Fox , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:39 pm GMT

The greatest jewish vulture fund is the zionist privately owned feral reserve aka the FED , is creates money out of thin air and feeds this money to the otherwise bankrupt zionist banks and not just here in the ZUS but in Europe, and the BIS is the vulture fund of vulture funds owned by the zionists, the biggest scam in the history of the world.

By the way, Tucker Carlson said that 911 truthers were nuts, that says it all about him.

[Jan 01, 2020] Vulture corporatism = U.S. corporations consuming consumers.

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

Rebel0007 , says: December 19, 2019 at 4:19 pm GMT

Vulture corporatism = U.S. corporations consuming consumers.

Anon [491] Disclaimer , says: December 19, 2019 at 11:43 am GMT
@Colin Wright usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your readers will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Because if you were to say: everyone does this, everywhere, but when Jews do it it's just on a larger scale, then you'd be shining light on the fact that what changes with Jews is just skills, and that they are intelligent enough to co-operate more than the others.
Like when Mac Donald speaks of Jewish self-deception.
I feel I am swimming in self-deception everytime I talk with people (more so with women), and they aren't Jewish. Do people do anything, but self-deceive?
So?
Richard B , says: December 19, 2019 at 4:34 pm GMT
@Anon

Bravo!

Hands down one of the best comments on Jewish Supremacy Inc.'s psychopathy, lack of accountablity and corresponding projection.

Of course, you thought you were doing something else.

Just passing through , says: December 19, 2019 at 4:38 pm GMT
@Really No Shit

Jews are doing to White countries what Whites and Jews did to India, no honour amongst thieves, the ones with the higher verbal IQ wins.

Also it is important to note that the reason India came under the sway of Anglo-Zionist banking cartels so easily was because how divided it was, I reckon that is why they are promoting mass immigration. Import lots of different groups, then run lots of race-baiting stories to distract the plebs from their financial machinations.

This is why Jews are well represented in non-antisemitic White Nationalist organisations like Jared Taylor's AmRen, they are great at playing both sides.

Realist , says: December 19, 2019 at 4:41 pm GMT
@Adrian

And he funded the building of the Peace Palace ("Vredespaleis") in The Hague, presently the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high esteem in the home country of the generous donor.

That wasn't his intent.

Just passing through , says: December 19, 2019 at 4:44 pm GMT
@Wally 't really engage in lofty ambitons to dominate the world and as such are intact at the moment and seem like they will remain that way for a long time, they are the true conservatives, WASPs have always had a Jewish streak within their corrupt souls and are now paying the price for engaging with a criminal race.

Why do you think Epstein has all these Gentiles in his pocket? You think do-gooding gentiles just randomly decided to get into bed with Epstein and Co.? How many East Asians and Eastern Euros do you see terrified of being outed as paedophiles.

Don't deceive yourselves, all debts are paid in the end, especially when the creditors are Jews.

aandrews , says: December 19, 2019 at 5:07 pm GMT

" it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this ."

Not really. The Jew's grip is starting to slip now, though. More and more people are becoming aware that they are virulent parasites and always have been.

DaveE , says: December 19, 2019 at 5:08 pm GMT
@Mulegino1 l capitalism is the competition of ideas, innovation, efficient manufacturing and quality products made and produced by honest companies. That competition can, in theory at least, make people (and companies) "try harder". But only when a company's success is determined by the strength of its products, not by the "deals" it cuts with Jewish financial, advertising, "marketing" and swindling rackets, designed to line the pockets of the Jew while destroying honest competition by Gentiles who struggle to play fair and innovate.

Jewish vulture "capitalism" contributes NOTHING of value to any company or any culture. It never has and never will.

[Jan 01, 2020] Andrew Carnegie at least left behind institutions like Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University, and over 2500 Free Libraries from coast to coast, in a time when very little was done to help what we now call the "underprivileged".

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

HammerJack , says: December 19, 2019 at 7:30 am GMT

@Colin Wright sity, and over 2500 Free Libraries from coast to coast, in a time when very little was done to help what we now call the "underprivileged".

In fact, he gave away 90% of his massive fortune–about $75 Billion in current dollars. Funding, in the process, many charities, hospitals, museums, foundations and institutions of learning. He was a major benefactor of negro education.

He was a staunch anti-imperialist who believed America should concentrate its energies on peaceful endeavors rather than conquering and subduing far-off lands.

Although they are even more keen to put their names on things, today's robber barons leave behind mainly wreckage.

Just passing through , says: December 19, 2019 at 8:56 am GMT
@anon who were true conservatives in that all they wished was prosperity for their people in their own lands without any aggressive foreign policy moves.

Basically, WASPs thought that they could win in the end, but they were out Jew'd and now they are crying.

The one difference you will notice is that certain subsections of WASPs, notable the British, actually did build infrastructure in the countries they looted, this to me was borne out of a sense of guilt, so to be fair, WASPs were not as parasitic and ruthless as Jews.

But in the end, the more ruthless wins. To quote the Joker

You get what you fucking deserve

Adrian , says: December 19, 2019 at 11:35 am GMT
@HammerJack

Andrew Carnegie left behind institutions like Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University, and over 2500 Free Libraries from coast to coast, in a time when very little was done to help what we now call the "underprivileged".

And he funded the building of the Peace Palace ("Vredespaleis") in The Hague, presently the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high esteem in the home country of the generous donor.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/gqF-NcRXdEs?feature=oembed

[Jan 01, 2020] Vulture Capitalism Is Jewish Capitalism

Jan 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

"If man will strike, strike through the mask!"
Ahab, Moby Dick

It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I first profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker's segment very starkly illustrated, their reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities. Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a "vulture fund" practicing "vulture capitalism." But these funds aren't run by carrion birds. They are operated almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most influential "vulture funds," to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I want us to strike through the mask.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/IdwH066g5lQ?feature=oembed

Who Are The Vultures?

It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management, Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital, Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort, the "Wolf of Wall Street," who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton Oakmont.

These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by, and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:

Elliot Management -- Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel Cerberus -- Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub, Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum FG Hemisphere -- Peter Grossman Autonomy Capital -- Derek Goodman Baupost Group -- Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach Canyon Capital Advisors -- Joshua Friedman, Mitchell Julis Monarch Alternative Capital -- Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock GoldenTree Asset Management -- Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro Aurelius Capital Management -- Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan OakTree Capital -- Howard Marks, Bruce Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone Fundamental Advisors -- Laurence Gottlieb, Jonathan Stern Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP -- Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff

The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don't have a special relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice. Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory of Jewish-European relations.

How They Feed

In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more than $74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was owed to all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg's Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, "They owe a lot of money to your friends on Wall Street, and we're going to have to wipe that out." But Trump's statement, like all of Trump's statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: "I think what you heard the president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt problem." In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.

Trump's reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to "your friends on Wall Street" he really meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt , leaving the country prone to a " wave of home repossessions " on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall) made thousands of Americans homeless . Feinberg has also been associated with mass evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to label him a "Jewish mega parasite" in charge of the "world's vilest vulture fund." In May 2018, Trump made Feinberg chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board , and one of the reasons for Trump's sluggish retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg's DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.

But Trump's association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece in the New York Post declared "Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in 2020." This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions, coupled with his commuting of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin 's 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel, where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, "We screened all of the people in attendance, and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican. People were standing up on their chairs chanting eight more years." The reality, of course, is that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.

The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial predators is certainly nothing new. Congo , Zambia , Liberia , Argentina , Peru , Panama , Ecuador , Vietnam , Poland , and Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching Greece and India . The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On its most basic level, "vulture capitalism" is really just a combination of the continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the peasantry to obtain "considerable surpluses if need be, by ruthless methods." [1] The activities of the Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets, bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.

This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the Belgian and UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer's predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:

It couldn't be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in 2016. He's given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never have heard of Paul Singer -- which tells you a lot in itself -- but in Washington, he's rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh yeah, it is.

Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a commentary on Carlson's piece at the American Conservative , points out that Singer gave a speech in May 2019 attacking the "rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party." Singer continued, "They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers." Dreher comments: "The productive efforts of businesspeople and workers"? The gall of that man, after what he did to the people of Sidney."

What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even any recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by politicians." Singer places himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, "this is not the free enterprise that we all learned about." That's because it's Jewish enterprise -- exploitative, inorganic, and attached to socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property. This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it's clearly the free enterprise Jews learn about -- as illustrated in their extraordinary over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.

Whom They Feed

Singer's duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds, awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?

Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has declared "free enterprise has been good for me," is a rapacious debt exploiter who was integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman's Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated island for bond payments. It's clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists, investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies (Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:

Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who -- in addition to having worked directly with Baupost -- seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship with a firm fitting Baupost's profile on his experience page. I called Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back (apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn't call back if he wasn't, and he seemed to get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer and has clients, how I must think I'm onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person standing right in front of him -- literally, standing right in front of him -- while I rudely insisted on keeping him on the line.

One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by Klarman under his Klarman Family Foundation . While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his " areas of focus " which prominently includes " Supporting the global Jewish community and Israel ." While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to "improving the quality of life and access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country's prosperity." Among those in Klarman's nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest, are the American Jewish Committee, Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also contributes to candidates who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, has said "The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being Neanderthals on this issue."

Steven Tananbaum's GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5 billion of the island's debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has commented :

Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree's chief investment officer, told a business conference in September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent $610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for exorbitant profits.

Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.

Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls, and utilities (Steve Feinberg's Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011, Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland's largest university, comments : "The aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies." One homeowner, Anna Flynn recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital, owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were "very, very difficult to deal with," said Flynn, a mother of four. "All [Mars] wanted was for me to leave the house; they didn't want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home]."

When Bruce Karsh isn't making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation, Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.

Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and have a stake in every company you're likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar stores. With the profits of exploitation, they fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration , boost Zionist politics, invest millions in security for Jews , and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican, and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch. Another key Singer project was the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in 2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S. policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from Singer.

Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics ("Paul Singer represents amnesty and he represents illegal immigration pouring into the country"), Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money . In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the Senate's most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a "retaliatory strike" against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put it, "These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect a return on their investment in Trump's GOP."

The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture, exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at the heads of the world's most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of regurgitated profits.

Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won't be stopped through blunt support of "free enterprise," and they won't be stopped by simply calling them "vulture capitalists."

Strike through the mask!

Notes

[1] S. Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.


Colin Wright , says: Website December 19, 2019 at 2:33 am GMT

'It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates '

It'll be interesting to see -- or not see -- what happens to Carlson in consequence.

Will he be brought to see the error of his ways? Silenced? Allowed to continue to run amok?

It would actually be reassuring if it turned out he was genuinely able to get away with it but these days? Paul Singer? That's big game.

Don't go out there with a .22

anon [631] Disclaimer , says: December 19, 2019 at 2:34 am GMT

To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? An application of "chutzpah" to business, if you will -- the gall to break social conventions to get what you want, while making other people feel uncomfortable; to wheedle your way in at the joints of social norms and conventions -- not illegal, but selfish and rude. Krav Maga applies the same concept to the martial arts: You're taught to go after the things that every other martial art forbids you to target: the eyes, the testicles, etc. In other sports this is considered "low" and "cheap." In Krav Maga, as perhaps a metaphor for Jewish behavior in general, nothing is too low because it's all about winning .

Colin Wright , says: Website December 19, 2019 at 3:07 am GMT

On a related subject

There's a rather good article on the New Yorker discussing the Sacklers and the Oxycontin epidemic. It focusses on the dichotomy between the family's ruthless promotion of the drug and their lavish philanthropy. 'Leave the world a better place for your presence' and similar pieties and Oxycontin.

The article lightly touches on the extent of their giving to Hebrew University of Jerusalem -- but in general, treads lightly when it comes to their Judaism.

understandably. The New Yorker isn't exactly alt-right country, after all. But can Joyce or anyone else provide a more exact breakdown on the Sacklers' giving? Are they genuine philanthropists, or is it mostly for the Cause?

Colin Wright , says: Website December 19, 2019 at 3:21 am GMT
@anon

'To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? '

It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.

Lot , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:36 am GMT

I won't defend high finance because I don't like it either. But this is a retarded and highly uninformed attack on it.

1. The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders, probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.

As a result, it is natural that normal investors sell off such debt at a discount to funds that specialize in it.

2. Joyce defends large borrowers that default on their debt. Maybe the laws protecting bankrupts and insolvents should be stronger. But you do that, and lenders become more conservative, investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments. I think myself the laws in the US are too favorable to lenders, but there's definitely a tradeoff, and the question is where the happy middle ground is. In Florida a creditor can't force the sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million. That's going too far in the other direction.

3. " either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral origins "

More retardation. Cerberus is a greek dog monster guarding the gates of hell. Aurelius is from the Latin word for gold. "Hemisphere" isn't an Anglosaxon word nor does in invoke rural origins.

Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."

4. The final and most general point: it's trivially easy to attack particular excesses of capitalism. Fixing the excesses without creating bigger problem is the hard part. Two ideas I favor are usury laws and Tobin taxes.

Saguaro , says: December 19, 2019 at 3:37 am GMT

Very true. What's really disgusting about Singer is that he funds startups in Israel. So as a Jewish American citizen he cares more for the well being of the average Israeli than Americans. There's nothing 'conservative' about these hedge fund Jews. I'm glad to be a Neanderthal according to Mr. Klarman's view. I happen to like Western Civilization and its inherent beauty especially when confronted against globalist Zionists who think nothing of the consequences of their behavior.

Dutch Boy , says: December 19, 2019 at 5:09 am GMT

Jewishness aside, maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises. The capitalist rush to abandon the American working class when tariff barriers evaporated is just another case of vulturism. Tax corporations based on the domestic content of their products and ban usury and vulturism will evaporate.

ANZ , says: December 19, 2019 at 5:26 am GMT

Someone with the username kikz posted a link to this article in the occidental observer. I read it and thought it was a great article. I'm glad it's featured here.

The article goes straight for the jugular and pulls no punches. It hits hard. I like that:

1. It shines a light on the some of the scummiest of the scummiest Wall Street players.
2. It names names. From the actual vulture funds to the rollcall of Jewish actors running each. It's astounding how ethnically uniform it is.
3. It proves Trump's ties with the most successful Vulture kingpin, Singer.
4. It shows how money flows from the fund owners to Zionist and Jewish causes.

This thing reads like a court indictment. It puts real world examples to many of the theories that are represents on this site. Excellent article.

renfro , says: December 19, 2019 at 6:23 am GMT

Tucker could have done a number on Trump friend Schwarzman too.Mark my words you're gonna have another melt down now that all the people who lost their home and ended up in rentals stop paying their rent that is now 2 1/2 times what their mortgage was.
This is another fake bubble being securitized and sold off. Just like putting people into houses with ARMs who couldnt afford them when the rates went up, Scharzman will fill up his rentals to 99% occupancy with special deals to sell them to investors, when the special deal period runs out and the rent goes up people will move out looking for cheaper housing and the securities wont be worth shit.

Blackstone Group , CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman Buys Houses in Bulk to Profit from Mortgage Crisis

https://corpwatch.org/article/blackstone-group-buys-houses-bulk-profit-mortgage-crisis

[MORE]
Rebel0007 , says: December 19, 2019 at 6:39 am GMT

This is not surprising that this has happened. All of the de-regulation on Wall Street, lobbied for by Wall Street has allowed this to transpire.

Congress does not even read the bills that they sign into law, let alone write them! Many are written by ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the Realtor's assosiation, the Medical Industrial Complex, public employee unions, and various other special interest groups!

Why is it a pressing issue to actively promote homosexuality? What is the point? That is realy strange! There is a difference between not actively discriminating and actively promoting!

Are they trying to worsen the AIDS epidemic or lower the birth rate? It does not make sense to be actively promoting and encouraging homosexuality.

renfro , says: December 19, 2019 at 6:41 am GMT
@Lot

In Florida a creditor can't force the sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million

Unless the law has changed in the last two years they can .. the Fla exemption says the affected property cannot be larger than half an acre in a municipality or 160 acres elsewhere.
I had a friend interested in a foreclosed horse farm in Fla .I think it was 200 acres, valued at about 6 million.

silviosilver , says: December 19, 2019 at 9:48 am GMT
@Colin Wright se funds, their legal expertise, and their political connections mean that borrowers can more successfully be held to account. If I owned, say, Puerto Rican debt in my retirement account, the chances that I could make Puerto Rico honor its obligations are much slimmer.

None of this is to suggest that finance, as we today know it, is perfect and that it couldn't be reformed in any way to make its operation more conducive to nationalistic social values, only that anti-cap ideologues like Joyce weave lurid tales of malfeasance out of completely humdrum market economics (which is precisely the same market economics that Tucker Carlson learned about too, btw).

Bardon Kaldian , says: December 19, 2019 at 10:21 am GMT
@silviosilver

Of course that Joyce is peddling his own obsessions, but I have to admit that Singer & comp. are detestable. I know that what they're doing is not illegal, but it should be (in my opinion), and those who are involved in such affairs are somehow odious. The same goes for Icahn, Soros etc.

Ethnic angle is evident, too: how come Singer works exclusively with his co-ethnics in this multi-ethnic USA? Non-Jewish & most Jewish entrepreneurs don't behave that way.

Anon [491] Disclaimer , says: December 19, 2019 at 11:43 am GMT
@Colin Wright usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your readers will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Because if you were to say: everyone does this, everywhere, but when Jews do it it's just on a larger scale, then you'd be shining light on the fact that what changes with Jews is just skills, and that they are intelligent enough to co-operate more than the others.
Like when Mac Donald speaks of Jewish self-deception.
I feel I am swimming in self-deception everytime I talk with people (more so with women), and they aren't Jewish. Do people do anything, but self-deceive?
So?
Anon [203] Disclaimer , says: December 19, 2019 at 1:08 pm GMT

I generally like Tucker but thought his piece on Singer was way off base and a silly hit job. As others above have commented, if you think it's wrong to buy or try to collect on defaulted debt, what is the alternative set of laws and behavior you are recommending? If debts can simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function. (Also, while it would take too much time and space to debate the Puerto Rico situation here, it bears noting that the entire PR public debt burden of ~$75 billion comes to around $25,000 per resident -- about a third of the comparable burden of public sector debt per person in the United States, which itself ignores tens of trillions of "off balance" sheet liabilities for underfunded social security, Medicare, Medicaid and public sector pension obligations. The source of PR's problems lies pretty clearly at the feet of PR's long corrupt politicians -- not the incidental holders of its bonds who would simply like to be repaid or have the debt reasonably restructured.)

Other minor points worth noting:

Joyce names a few Jews associated with Baupost but misleadingly omits its president, the guy who is running the show: Jim Mooney, a proud graduate of Holy Cross and big supporter of Catholic and Jesuit causes. If memory serves, Jim was also the guy behind some of Baupost's biggest and most successeful distressed debt (or "vulture" to use Joyce's pejorative term) trades. The firm's Jewish founder (Seth Klarman) has also donated tons of money to secular causes, including something like $60 million for a huge facility at Cornell.

Speaking of donations and Jews, I believe Bloomberg (not technically a "vulture" capitalist but clearly just as bad -- I.e., Jewish -- on the Joyce scale) gave $1.5 billion to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins. If memory serves, that may have been the largest donation to any university ever. Maybe Carnegie's donations were greater in "real" dollars, but Bloomberg's donation is still pretty significant -- with likely more to come.

[Jan 01, 2020] Prolonging the discussion about the bad habit Western Democracies have on falsifying official statistic

Jan 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Dec 29 2019 3:42 utc | 55

Prolonging the discussion about the bad habit Western Democracies have on falsifying official statistics:

On Those Questionable US Wage Stats Again

[Jan 01, 2020] Time for PhD supervision

Jan 01, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

by Ingrid Robeyns on December 29, 2019 Some aspects of academia show great international variation. There is one on which I haven't found any good data, and hence thought I'll ask the crowd here so that we can gather our own data, even if it will be not very scientifically collected.

The question is this: if you are a university teacher/professor and your department awards PhD-degrees, do you get any official time allocated (or time-compensation) for PhD supervision? If it is part of a teaching load model, how many hours (or % teaching load) is it equivalent to? Or is there an expectation that you take on PhD-students but that this does not lead to a reduction in other tasks?

How do international practices of the conditions for PhD-supervisors compare?

In my faculty (Humanities at Utrecht University, the Netherlands), all supervisors together (which generally are two, sometimes three) are collectively given a teaching load reduction of 132 hours in the year follow the graduation of the PhD-candidate. So your teaching reduction upon successful graduation of a PhD-candidate tends to be 66 hours. For the supervisory work you effectively do in the four years prior to graduation, there is no time allocated; so you effectively do this in your research or your leisure time.

To put this into perspective: most (assistant/associate/full) professors teach 50-70% of their time, and a fulltime workload is 1670 hours, or 1750 hours if you are saving for a sabbatical. This can be reduced if you have major managerial tasks (e.g. Head of Department) or if a large part of your wage is paid by a research grant. So without reductions, we teach about 835-1190 hours a year (this includes the time for preparation and examination, but frankly, one always needs more than the teaching load models allocate for a given course. And in general there are no TAs or other support staff to help with the practical sides of teaching).

For writing the grants that are almost always needed to create the jobs for PhD students (with success rates now around 15%), and for supervising those who in the end do not get their PhD degree, there is no time put aside for the supervisor/applicants. That time also goes, effectively, from our research time, or, more realistically, from our leisure time.

Recently, I heard from a British colleague and a Swedish colleague their models for PhD-supervision, which were way more generous (and rightly so in my view), so thought I'll throw the question on the table here: what, if any, time-compensation/teachingreduction do you get for supervising PhD students?

I am not trying to suggest here that without adequate time set aside for doing this work, it would not be worthwhile supervising PhDs. There are in many cases other forms of rewards for the work one does as a PhD supervisor. One might be the honor of supervising PhDs, and in most cases the intrinsic rewards of the supervisory process – the satisfaction of seeing a young person take their first steps as a scholar, and being able to play a crucial role in this process. There is , after all, a reason why the Germans call their PhD-supervisor mein Doktorvater or meine Doktormutter – since yes, there is this element of helping someone to grow, in a cognitive and professional sense. Professionally, there are few people who had so much influence on me as my PhD-supervisor, and I am hoping that some of my (former) PhD-students will think the same at some point in their lives. So it would be wrong to frame it merely as a burden, since there is the intrinsic value of the rather unique professional relationship. But that cannot be a reason to not give PhDsupervisors the time they need to properly supervise, given how severe time pressure in academia is. I see this as a real tension.

In some academic fields, there may be professional research benefits for the supervisors, such as becoming co-authors on the publications the PhD-students write under your supervision. I recently examined a PhD-thesis in medical ethics, and all chapters (being articles published or under review) had been co-written with several members of the supervisory team. Even raising the funds to hire the PhD is sometimes seen as sufficient reason to be listed as a co-author. In the humanities there is no such a thing: we don't put our names on articles of our PhDstudents, even if we contributed significantly to the development of that piece (rightly so in my view).

I'm posting this because I am interested in the international comparison in its own right, but also because of its relevance in discussions on higher education policies which are currently very intense in the Netherlands, on which I'll write another blogpost later.

Share this: { 24 comments read them below or add one }

Chris Bertram 12.29.19 at 9:45 am ( 1 )

In my part of my university each PhD student earns her supervisors around 60 notional hours/1600 total per annum, but that's usually divided 5/1 between two supervisors, so that the person actually doing the work has about 50 hours, so slightly over an hour/week given annual leave etc. My greatest beef with this is when we admit non-anglophone PhD students. Since they officially have a level of competence in English as a condition of their admission, they do not get any extra time for supervision. But in practice, their work takes much longer to read and you have to put a lot of work into improving their English.
Mike Beggs 12.29.19 at 10:18 am ( 2 )
In my faculty (Arts and Social Sciences at Sydney) the primary supervisor gets 40 hours per year and an auxiliary supervisor gets ten. (There is some flexibility for the 50 total hours to be divided differently.)

In a recent survey of faculty staff with a response rate of around 30%, most reported spending longer per primary supervision: the median was 50 hours.

There's actually a growing literature on academic time use. Kenny and Fluck have published a series of papers based on a large survey of Australian academics. The median reported time spent supervising a higher degree student per year was 60 hours over all discipline groups, 50 hours for Arts, Law and Humanities. (Kenny and Fluck 2018 'Research workloads in Australian universities', _Australian Universities Review_ -- and the companion papers on teaching and admin workloads are also worth googling for the full results over lots of tasks.)

Matt Matravers 12.29.19 at 10:31 am ( 3 )
When we tried to establish a "norm" at the University of York, it turned out that practice varied widely not only across faculties, but within the arts and humanities and social sciences. Some departments simply included it in "research time" and gave zero extra time, others gave a (more-or-less generous) "teaching" allocation. So, I am not sure you can get any useful comparisons even at an institutional level let alone internationally.
Currently, in the Law School at York, a PhD student – during the period of registration (i.e., only for the first 3 years) – earns her supervisors around 80 notional hours of teaching per year. This is split across the supervisory team in proportion to their involvement.
Many colleagues think this is insufficient, in particular with non-anglophone students and it can be particularly galling if one is putting a lot of work into the final "writing up" year.
For what it is worth, I found this very hard to manage when I was Head of Department (and so responsible for workloads). The issue for me was that in many cases senior colleagues had several PhD students and (some) junior colleagues none (or very little involvement. This was back in the day of most students have one supervisor.). Modelling a system where PhD supervision was "properly" rewarded (that is, where I tried to allocate hours in accordance to the amount of time it actually took) resulted in a very hierarchical department where (roughly) senior colleagues did PhD supervision and junior colleagues taught undergraduates. So, I didn't do it.
For what it is worth (addressing the wider issues of workload), it seems to me that there is an inevitable gap between a workload system conceived of as a mechanism of "counting" (how many hours does this job actually take?) and conceived of as a mechanism of "distribution" (how much work is there to be done and how many people to do it?). Of course, the distributive principles cannot stray too far from the realities revealed in counting, but it (seems to me at least) perfectly okay to think that the distributive principles include other considerations like the "shape" of the department, individual "goals" (having PhD students is good for promotion at York) and personal development, gender, and so on.
Finally, this problem does not seem to be unique to PhD supervision (the current "hot topic" at York is how to count/distribute time for research grant writing, which at the moment is simply included in individual research in most, but not all, departments). York tried to introduce a workload model across the university and never managed it because departmental variations were so huge (in everything from whether/how to include teaching preparation time to how to rank administrative tasks). That said, this may be the result of our particular institutional history (until recently, we had a very flat structure with only relatively autonomous departments and no faculties).
Faustusnotes 12.29.19 at 10:48 am ( 4 )
In Japan as far as I know there is no allowance at all, and senior staff (the professor who is the official supervisor) often dump all supervisory responsibility on the most junior staff. There is also often no limit on how many PhD students the professor can take on (and dump on their assistant prof). This is particularly bad with masters students, whose theses are much more time limited and challenging to supervise.

I don't know if it's a general thing but my colleagues in China tell me they are only allowed a PhD student if they publish above a certain level – PhD students are treated as a valuable asset you need to struggle to get. (I think they are paid by the uni but don't quote me). In the universities I know of in China the PhD student has to publish to graduate (sometimes like 3 papers) so the benefits to the supervisor are obvious.

I'm in public health where publication is relatively easy and quick. I don't know how it is in other disciplines (but the Japanese professor dumping his responsibilities on junior staff is quite common across disciplines as far as I can tell).

Harry 12.29.19 at 12:34 pm ( 5 )
It's not part of a workload model for us. We're expected to teach 2 classes a semester (8 contact hours a week total), then research, service, and graduate supervision on top, but the only thing that is specified is the 2 classes. So no compensation for PhD students. In practice the number of PhD supervisions varies greatly across faculty (as you'd expect), as does the amount of service work we do (if you're good at it you get asked to do more, if you're tenured and responsible you generally try to say yes), as does the amount of time we actually spend on the courses we teach.

As do our salaries, to be fair, which reflect years of service, perceived quality of research, how much the people elected to the department budget value the other things we do, and, to some extent, market forces.

What I've described is my own department. There's huge variation across campus, including variation in numbers of courses we're expected to teach.

Possibly worth mentioning that from what I have gathered expectations of how many courses we teach have fallen dramatically (across campus) over the past 50 years, and the number of course releases granted have increased dramatically: I estimate faculty in the humanities teach 30% less than 50 years ago, and in the sciences 50% less. I imagine this is similar across public research universities and SLACs.

notGoodenough 12.29.19 at 1:47 pm ( 6 )
So, purely anecdotal and from the perspective of a PhD and post-doc in Science at 2 different, fairly well thought of UK Universities (Russel group, etc. etc.).

PhD students are highly valuable. This is because a Masters or summer student are necessarily short term, and it is difficult to fulfil much breakthrough research (sometimes you need a few years of banging your head against a wall ). Post-docs are phenomenally expensive as in the UK as the University charges a huge amount just to have them – e.g. a rough breakdown (from some years ago, so a little out of date) is to just have a post-doc (i.e. no equipment, materials, etc.) is in excess of £110K per year. Some 31000 is for salary, the rest goes to the University to keep the lights on. Having more than a few post-docs, for all but the most successful labs, became prohibitively expensive.

However, as a PhD most of my time was with my post-docs (in my first year I saw my professor once, for 1hr, in later years maybe a few times more, so approximately 15 hr over 3.5 years). As a post-doc, the PhD students had regular meetings in a group format once per month (so, more or less 2-3 hr per month). In both cases it, in principle, was possible to go and meet the supervisor if you felt the need, but generally speaking your post-doc was the point of contact on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis.

I've not been a lecturer, so this is very speculative, but my impression is that supervising PhD students is generally considered a research activity, and thus you are not budgeted time for it specifically.

Not sure if any of this is useful, but feel free to hit me up for more details if you think it is useful/interesting.

Karen Anderson 12.29.19 at 2:03 pm ( 7 )
I taught for 15 years at 3 Dutch universities, 3 years at a Russell Group university in England, and am now at an Irish university. I did my PhD in the United States. Like the other posters, I have experienced wide variation in 'compensation' for PhD supervision. One of the reasons I left my position at a British university was the bizarre (and I thought, unfair) model for workload allocation. PhD supervision was highly 'compensated', and actual classroom teaching of undergrads was not. I had colleagues who met all or most of their teaching obligations with PhD supervision and did not teach undergrads.
I don't know what the best way to compensate PhD supervision is, but there are a couple of aspects I think need more attention. The first is wide variation in the number of PhD students in any given department and the rules/norms governing who is (de facto) permitted to supervise PhDs. Dutch departments have fewer PhD students than UK/Irish departments (for complicated reasons), and only full (and now associate?) profs are permitted to supervise. PhD supervision is important for promotion (as it is in the UK and IE), so everyone wants to do it, but not everyone has access. I am not sure that an activity that is so important for career progression should be generously compensated.
The second issue concerns co-authoring with a PhD student. I can see the advantages of this (which Ingrid mentions), but the proliferation of the article-based PhD where the supervisors co-author all articles is a cause for concern. Again, I am not convinced that a PhD supervisor should be generously compensated for something (publications) that strongly advances their own career. And it is not clear to me that the supervisor's contribution to the publication (in many cases, at least) amounts to more than what would be considered 'normal' PhD supervision in the US, Canada, and many European universities. This makes it very difficult to evaluate a newly minted PhD's CV, and it inflates the publication list of more senior academics.
A couple of ideas: 1) cap the number of PhD students that staff can supervise, or at least cap the number for which teaching points are earned. 2) ensure that all academic staff have access to PhD supervision.
praisegod barbones 12.29.19 at 4:32 pm ( 8 )
Private university in Turkey : the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students and MA theses takes zero time (although people typically budget an hour per week per student.
Neville Morley 12.29.19 at 4:50 pm ( 9 )
The workload allocation for Humanities at the University of Exeter is similar to Chris's account of Bristol (where I worked previously), though it's more common for the hours to be divided 70/30, 60/40 or even 50/50 between first and second supervisors, with the latter playing a much more active role. The biggest difference, however, is that you continue to receive an allowance when the student is writing up, and even if they're revising after a first examination, whereas the Bristol practice was, at least, that you get a workload allowance for the first three years and then nothing for the period which in my experience often required the greatest amount of work
Phil 12.29.19 at 5:50 pm ( 10 )
I haven't – yet – supervised a doctoral student, but I did examine a viva this year & was surprised to find that this carried no workload allowance at all, which seems odd given the amount of reading time involved. (Fortunately I wasn't mad busy.)
likbez 12.29.19 at 7:10 pm ( 11 )
40-60 hours are typical. They do not compensate for the effort but still.
oldster 12.29.19 at 7:16 pm ( 12 )
Former US academic; taught at a few R1 uni's from 80s to aughts.

To echo the doughty Puritan: " the basic assumption here is that supervising PhD students and MA theses takes zero time."

We had a standard teaching load, and expectations for research and service. But there was no calculation of supervisory load -- it simply was not tracked, budgeted, or accounted for. As Harry says above, there were wide disparities from person to person, since some people attract a lot of grad students and some do not (and some repel them, either for strategic purposes, or because they are repellent no matter what they try).

No one cared whether you supervised 15 PhD students or zero. Not quite true -- there was some unofficial awareness among colleagues who thought collegially about things. And you might get some private thanks or informal kudos for doing more than your share. But there was absolutely no official account of it. And this was true at all 3 R1s I taught at over several decades.

That's partly because -- in a Humanities field -- the funding of grad students does not follow the prof, but the program as a whole. So, Central Admin knows that your department is training 25 PhDs, because Central Admin has to figure their tuition, stipends, etc. But the money then flows to your department as a whole, with no closer investigation of who in your department is doing the work.

The picture must be radically different in the Sciences, where there is literal accounting of PhD students, since they are supported by the professor's grant-money.

hix 12.29.19 at 8:08 pm ( 13 )
Surely there are other ways to offload work to PhD students one would otherwise have to do oneself besides getting research recognition for their thesis. How much of that is possible should also vary across countries. So a comparsion of alocated supervision time only seems a bit one sided.
John Quiggin 12.29.19 at 10:07 pm ( 14 )
As regards co-authorship, my PhD students and postdocs are often keen to include me on the theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of acceptance. My impression is that, in economics, the expectation is that the main job market paper will be sole-authored or else co-authored with another junior researcher, but that others are likely to be co-authored with the supervisor.

To complicate things further, economics (like philosophy, I believe) works on average quality rather than total contribution. So, a publication with a student in a journal lower ranked than my average paper is actually a negative for me.

Matt 12.29.19 at 10:38 pm ( 15 )
I assume that "Harry" above is Harry B of the blog. If so, he's showing why comparisons w/ the US on this will be hard, if not impossible. In many countries, there is a weird fantasy that academics can and should be treated like hourly employees, with "hours" assigned to things. (This is certainly so in Australia.) Of course, it's a fantasy in that, if it in fact takes a lot more "hours" to do the things you're assigned, you don't get over-time, comp time, or paid more. The other down-side is that this system leads, in my experience, to more micro-managing – being expected to "account" for your time to a much greater degree. The US system treats academics more like salaried employees – you get paid a certain amount, you have certain tasks to do, and you must do them (some of them at particular times, like teaching classes) but otherwise you're not dealing with "hours" for things. The down-side is that there can be lots of variation in how much work people actually do – even teaching the same "number" of classes can vary a lot depending on the number of preps, size, how often you've taught it, if you have TAs, etc., and having more advisees may not lead to more recognition on its own. The plus side is that less time is spent on being mico-managed and bureaucratic nonsense. The relevant point here, though, is that it's really hard to make a comparison like the one asked for between systems where one treats academics more like hourly employees and the other more like salaried employees.
Gabriel 12.29.19 at 10:52 pm ( 16 )
My wife (a New Zealand academic with confirmation) is allocated a. 24 hours per year for supervising PhD students. She trusts that the ludicrousness of this number is not lost on those present.
billcinsd 12.30.19 at 1:39 am ( 17 )
I am a Professor in an Engineering discipline at a small, state engineering school in the US. Our workload is departmentally determined. My department is fairly small, ~100 undergrads, but does quite a bit of research. My nominal workload is 40% teaching, 40% research and 20% service. This is based on 40 working hours per week. My effective workload is 46% teaching, 8% advising (both undergrad and grad), 23% overseeing my funded research projects and about 25% service. This is more than 100%, which is true for almost all faculty at my school.

Thus, I estimate how much time I spend doing various things and then convert that to credit hours, as my contract is specified in terms of 18 credit hours of work per semester, making a credit hour about 2 hours and 40 minutes

Kevin 12.30.19 at 2:11 pm ( 18 )
In Technological University Dublin (formerly Dublin Institute of Technology), supervision of a full-time PhD student attracts a time allowance of 2 hours per week (48 hours per annum), from a weekly teaching load of 16 contact hours for lecturers (18 hours for assistant lecturers). So, for example, a lecturer with two full-time PhD students will allocate 25% (4 hours) of his / her weekly contact teaching duties to this role.
Michael Dunn 12.30.19 at 2:45 pm ( 19 )
In my department (at Uppsala University, Sweden) the workload norm is 88 hours per year supervisory time for the main supervisor and 20 for the assistant supervisor. This time includes the face-to-face hours, as well as reading, commenting, etc. The split can be done differently to reflect other kinds of co-supervisory arrangements. This seems very generous compared to what others are reporting, which is sad, since an average of 1 hour meeting, 1 hour reading per week for 44 weeks in a year would work out as very minimal supervision -- and supervisors typically spend much more time on supervision related tasks than this.
Johan Karlsson Schaffer 12.30.19 at 4:44 pm ( 20 )
A couple of years ago, I did a survey of the formal teaching duties at polisci departments at Scandinavian universities for a report published by the Swedish Institute for Labour Market Evaluation. The survey looked at the formal percentage of teaching duty for senior lecturers and full professors, and the formal compensation in terms of hours allotted for various teaching activities (e.g., lectures, supervision at different levels, examination and so on).

We found, first, that the formal teaching duty varied quite a lot across Scandinavian universities, but that all Swedish universities had less generous conditions than Danish and Norwegian universities, which came closer to the Humboldtian ideal of unity of teaching and research.

Second, by multiplying teaching duty and compensation for a standard set of teaching activities, we found that the consequences for the individual lecturer could be quite drastic: over a hypothetical career from age 35 to retirement at 67, a lecturer at the least generous university could have ten whole years more of teaching duty than their colleague at the most generous university.

The report is, unfortunately, only available in Swedish, but the graphs and tables (which also includes detailed information on the compensation for PhD supervision) should be rather self-explanatory.
https://www.ifau.se/sv/Forskning/Publikationer/Rapporter/2016/att-mota-den-hogre-utbildningens-utmaningar/

Here's a blog post summary of these findings that include the most important graphs:
https://politologerna.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/att-mota-den-hogre-utbildningens-utmaningar/

Sam Tobin-Hochstadt 12.30.19 at 6:53 pm ( 21 )
I'm an Associate Professor in Computer Science at a US R1 university.

As Matt says, the description in Ingrid's post is totally unlike how things are thought of at all in US universities. My load is 40% research, 40% teaching, 20% service, which is standard for tenure-track faculty in my department (and I think across departments here). The standard teaching load is 3 courses per year (2 in one semester, 1 in the other). However, there are several exceptions to this: before tenure, faculty are assigned only 2 courses per year. Also, if you support (with external grant funding) 3 PhD students or post-docs in the previous year then you only teach 2 courses the next year. Additionally, pre-tenure faculty are asked to do considerably less service.

Furthermore, there are several additional differences that are relevant. First, and most importantly, the distinction between "research" and "PhD supervision" does not exist in science. Effectively all of my research is joint with PhD students, although sometimes they are not "my" students, but those of my collaborators. Second, not all students are funded by grants; PhD students can also be funded by teaching. So it's possible to have one or two students without bringing in funding. Third, there's a strong expectation that training PhD students is part of the job, you wouldn't get tenure/promotion/etc if you just didn't do it.

Z 12.30.19 at 8:33 pm ( 22 )
In my institution, you don't get any teaching load reduction, whereas you do get a tiny but non-zero reduction for supervising a master thesis, or even an undergraduate research project. I believe that is the norm in France in science in general, and most likely overall. The logic behind that choice is that supervising a PhD student is supposed to bring its own benefits: the student will do a lot of lab work for the superviser, the superviser will cosign the research papers etc.

In math (my own field), there is no lab work to be done and the French tradition is that papers drawn from the PhD should be signed by the student alone, so the arrangement is quite unfavorable to us.

On the other hand

So without reductions, we teach about 835-1190 hours a year

Did I read that right? Can you clarify how many hours are counted for one hour in front of the students? That number looks like madness to me (and I have a heavy teaching load myself).

CdnNew 12.30.19 at 9:11 pm ( 23 )
Canadian math prof:

"Highly research-active" profs teach one fewer course per year. There is some flexibility as to how to maintain this designation, but typically you must have at least 2 active graduate students at any given time (and meet various other requirements).

Going through our standard courseload: if you ignore the other work related to maintaining status, your first two Ph.D. students are worth about 90 hours/year, and the remainder are worth nothing.

likbez 12.31.19 at 12:57 am ( 24 )
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

John Quiggin 12.29.19 at 10:07 pm @14

As regards co-authorship, my Ph.D. students and postdocs are often keen to include me on the theory that a paper with a more senior author will have a better chance of acceptance.

This is an important point. I agree that it is somewhat dishonest to use your post-grad students to increase you number of publications. But it should be weighted against the real difficulties of young researchers to get their papers published. And the fact that sometimes brilliant papers from them are rejected. Nobody can abolish clan behavior in the academy. And the "academic kitchen" is pretty dirty, and takes years to understand ;-).

Sometimes publishing oversees helps here, and young researchers should keep this in mind. For many foreign journals, just the fact that you are a foreigner from a prestigious university is a plus that weights on the acceptance.

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

Oldies But Goodies

[Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

[Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

[Dec 19, 2017] Do not Underestimate the Power of Microfoundations

[Dec 15, 2017] Rise and Decline of the Welfare State, by James Petras

[Dec 14, 2017] The 1970's was in many ways the watershed decade for the neoliberal transformation of the American economy and society

[Dec 12, 2017] When a weaker neoliberal state fights the dominant neoliberal state, the center of neoliberal empire, it faces economic sanctions and can t retaliate using principle eye for eye

[Dec 12, 2017] Thoughts on Neoconservatism and Neoliberalism by Hugh

[Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

[Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

[Dec 05, 2017] Controlling speculation in world financial markets Progressive Christians Uniting by Gordon K Douglass

[Dec 03, 2017] Business Has Killed IT With Overspecialization by Charlie Schluting

[Dec 03, 2017] Another Democratic party betrayal of their former voters. but what you can expect from the party of Bill Clinton?

[Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

[Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

[Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson

[Nov 29, 2017] Secular Stagnation: The Time for One-Armed Policy is Over

[Nov 29, 2017] Economics is a Belief System - and We are Ruled by Fundamentalists

[Nov 29, 2017] Michael Hudson: The Wall Street Economy is Draining the Real Economy

[Nov 29, 2017] Positive Feedback Loops, Financial Instability, The Blind Spot Of Policymakers

[Nov 29, 2017] Attack on Sanders Economic Plan By Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors Irresponsible

[Nov 27, 2017] College Is Wildly Exploitative Why Arent Students Raising Hell

[Nov 05, 2017] China and the US Rational Planning and Lumpen Capitalism by James Petras

[Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

[Oct 29, 2017] If You Look Behind Neoliberal Economists, You'll Discover the Rich: How Economic Theories Serve Big Business

[Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins

[Oct 24, 2017] Goldman Sachs ruling America by Gary Rivlin, Michael Hudson

[Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

[Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire

[Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

[Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

[Oct 10, 2017] The US Economy: Explaining Stagnation and Why It Will Persist by Thomas I. Palley

[Feb 26, 2019] Neoliberalism by Julie Wilson

[Oct 08, 2017] Financialization: theoretical analysis and historical perspectives by Costas Lapavitsas

[Oct 07, 2017] Finances hold on our everyday life must be broken by Costas Lapavitsas

[Oct 06, 2017] Prof. Philip Mirowski keynote for Life and Debt conference

[Oct 06, 2017] How Economists Turned Corporations into Predators

[Oct 02, 2017] Techs push to teach coding isnt about kids success – its about cutting wages by Ben Tarnoff

[Oct 01, 2017] Attempts to buy US elections using perverted notion of free speech were deliberate. This is an immanent feature of neoliberalism which being Trotskyism for the rich deny democracy for anybody outside the top one percent (or, may be, top 10-20 percent)

[Oct 01, 2017] Bulletproof Neoliberalism by Paul Heideman

[Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

[Sep 25, 2017] Free market as a neoliberal myth, the cornerstone of neoliberalism as a secular religion

[Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

[Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

[Sep 18, 2017] Critical Realism: Mathematics versus Mythematics in Economics

[Sep 18, 2017] Looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence: non-interventionism, no to neoliberal globalization, no to outsourcing of jobs, and no to multiculturism. All were betrayed very soon

[Sep 18, 2017] Its always bizarre who easily neoliberals turn into hawkish and warmongering jerks

[Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

[Sep 11, 2017] Neo-classical economics as a new flat earth cult

[Sep 11, 2017] Neoliberalism is creating loneliness. That's what is wrenching society apart by George Monbiot

[Sep 11, 2017] The only countervailing force, unions, were deliberately destroyed. Neoliberalism needs to atomize work force to function properly and destroys any solidarity among workers. Unions are anathema for neoliberalism, because they prevent isolation and suppression of workers.

[Sep 11, 2017] Around 1970 corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests with capital owners and realigned themselves, abandoning working class and a large part of lower middle class (small business owners)

[Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow

[Sep 05, 2017] A State of Neoliberalism

[Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli

[Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

[Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

[Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

[Jul 04, 2017] Summers as a defender of Flat Earth theory

[Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey

[May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

[May 08, 2017] Karl Polanyi for President by Patrick Iber and Mike Konczal

[Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

[May 01, 2017] Trump: A Resisters Guide by Wesley Yang

[Apr 18, 2017] Atomization of workforce as a part of atomization of society under neoliberalism

[Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras

[Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

[Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

[Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

[Sep 07, 2018] Neomodernism - Wikipedia

[Jun 06, 2018] Neoliberal language allows to cut wages by packaging neoliberal oligarchy preferences as national interests

[May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone

[Apr 23, 2018] How Neoliberalism Worms Its Way Into Your Brain by Nathan J. Robinson

[Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

[Dec 24, 2017] Laudato si by Pope Francis

[Oct 08, 2017] On the history and grand duplicity of neoliberalism

[Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world by Stephen Metcalf

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

[Sep 16, 2017] The Transformation of the American Dream

[Sep 11, 2017] Around 1970 corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests with capital owners and realigned themselves, abandoning working class and a large part of lower middle class (small business owners)

[May 08, 2017] Karl Polanyi for President by Patrick Iber and Mike Konczal

[Jan 23, 2017] One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings

[Dec 30, 2018] The essence of neoliberalism by Pierre Bourdieu

[Dec 27, 2018] The Yoda of Silicon Valley by Siobhan Roberts

[Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

[Dec 16, 2018] Neoliberalism has had its day. So what happens next (The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics) by Martin Jacques

[Dec 14, 2018] Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom by Deborah Orr

[Dec 11, 2018] John Taylor Gatto s book, The Underground History of American Education, lays out the sad fact of western education ; which has nothing to do with education; but rather, an indoctrination for inclusion in society as a passive participant. Docility is paramount in members of U.S. society so as to maintain the status quo

[Dec 09, 2018] Neoliberalism is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector.

[Feb 10, 2019] Neoliberalism is dead. Now let's repair our democratic institutions by Richard Denniss

[Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population

[Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

[Dec 03, 2018] Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard.

[Nov 27, 2018] The political fraud of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal"

[Nov 27, 2018] American capitalism could afford to make concessions assiciated with The New Deal because of its economic dominance. The past forty years have been characterized by the continued decline of American capitalism on a world stage relative to its major rivals. The ruling class has responded to this crisis with a neoliberal counterrevolution to claw back all gains won by workers. This policy has been carried out under both Democratic and Republican administrations and with the assistance of the trade unions.

[Nov 27, 2018] The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union

[Nov 25, 2018] Let s recap what Obama s coup in Ukraine has led to shall we?

[Nov 23, 2018] Sitting on corruption hill

[Nov 03, 2018] Neoliberal Measurement Mania

[Nov 03, 2018] Kunstler The Midterm Endgame Democrats' Perpetual Hysteria

[Oct 18, 2018] The Political Economy of the Working Class

[Oct 13, 2018] To paraphrase Stalin: They are both worse.

[Oct 09, 2018] NYT Claims Trump Campaign (Almost) Colluded With Israeli Spies

[Sep 29, 2018] Steve Keen How Economics Became a Cult

[Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez

[Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

[Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

[Sep 25, 2018] The entire documentary "The Spider's Web: Britain's Second Empire" by Michael Oswald is worth watching as an introduction to the corruption in the global finance industry.

[Sep 23, 2018] UK Begged Trump Not To Declassify Russia Docs; Cited Grave Concerns Over Steele Involvement

[Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

[Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence

[Sep 07, 2018] Neomodernism - Wikipedia

[Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes

[Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

[Aug 22, 2018] The US financial sector has manifestly failed at allocating capital properly and is filled with rent seeking by Anatoly Karlin

[Aug 19, 2018] End of "classic neoliberalism": to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare.

[Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street

[Aug 18, 2018] Pentagon Whistleblower Demoted After Exposing Millions Paid To FBI Spy Halper, Clinton Crony

[Aug 10, 2018] On Contact: Casino Capitalism with Natasha Dow Schull

[Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

[Mar 18, 2019] Doublethink and Newspeak Do We Have a Choice by Greg Guma

[Jul 23, 2018] The Prophecy of Orwell's 1984. Totalitarian Control and the Entertainment Culture that Takes Over by Edward Curtin

[Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

[Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

[Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable

[Jul 16, 2018] Why the Media is Desperate to Reclaim its Gatekeeper Status for News Zero Hedge Zero Hedge

[Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

[Jun 25, 2018] The review of A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey by Michael J. Thompson

[Jun 21, 2018] The neoliberal agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:

[Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt

[Jun 17, 2018] The Necessity of a Trump-Putin Summit by Stephen F. Cohen

[Jun 17, 2018] Neoliberalism as socialism for the banks

[Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism by Sasha Breger Bush

[May 31, 2018] Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent's Stealth Takeover of America by Lynn Parramore

[May 30, 2018] How Media Amnesia Has Trapped Us in a Neoliberal Groundhog Day

[May 29, 2018] Guccifer 2.0's American Fingerprints Reveal An Operation Made In The USA by Elizabeth Lea Vos

[May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

[May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press

[May 23, 2018] Mueller role as a hatchet man is now firmly established. Rosenstein key role in applointing Mueller without any evidence became also more clear with time. Was he coerced or did it voluntarily is unclear by Lambert Strether

[May 20, 2018] Yes, Neoliberalism Is a Thing. Don't Let Economists Tell You Otherwise naked capitalism

[May 20, 2018] "Free markets" as a smoke screen for parasitizing riches to implement their agenda via, paradoxically, state intervention

[May 09, 2018] Trotskyist Delusions, by Diana Johnstone

[Feb 03, 2019] Neoliberalism and Christianity

[Apr 23, 2018] Neoliberals are statists, much like Trotskyites are

[Apr 23, 2018] How Neoliberalism Worms Its Way Into Your Brain by Nathan J. Robinson

[Apr 22, 2018] The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite

[Apr 21, 2018] Amazingly BBC newsnight just started preparing viewers for the possibility that there was no sarin attack, and the missile strikes might just have been for show

[Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

[Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts

[Apr 02, 2018] The Litvinenko Conspiracy

[Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

[Apr 01, 2018] Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted by political advertisements based on what they already believe?

[Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

[Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

[Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism

[Mar 12, 2018] There is no democracy without economic democracy by Jason Hirthler

[Mar 12, 2018] Colonizing the Western Mind using think tanks

[Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

[Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian

[Mar 02, 2018] The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against Trump might be that they're terrified that -- unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for the US led neoliberal empire. This threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train

[Mar 02, 2018] Fatal Delusions of Western Man by Pat Buchanan

[Feb 25, 2018] Democracies are political systems in which the real ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power

[Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia

[Feb 14, 2018] The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation by James Petras

[Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

[Feb 11, 2018] The Bankruptcy of the American Left by Chris Hedges

[Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...

[Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

[Feb 03, 2018] JP Morgan Oil Could Hit $78 Within Months

[Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi

[Oct 28, 2019] National Neolibralism destroyed the World Trade Organisation by John Quiggin

[Oct 25, 2019] Trump-Haters, Not Trump, Are The Ones Wrecking America s Institutions, WSJ s Strassel Says

[Oct 24, 2019] Empire Interventionism Versus Republic Noninterventionism by Jacob Hornberger

[Oct 23, 2019] Neoconservatism Is An Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped by Caitlin Johnstone

[Oct 23, 2019] The Pathocracy Of The Deep State Tyranny At The Hands Of A Psychopathic Government

[Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism

[Oct 10, 2019] Trump, Impeachment Forgetting What Brought Him to the White House by Andrew J. Bacevich

[Oct 09, 2019] Ukrainegate as the textbook example of how the neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from real issues

[Oct 08, 2019] Parade of whistleblowers: a second whistleblower is now considering filing a complaint about President Donald Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine

[Oct 06, 2019] Devop created huge opportunities for a new generation of snake oil salesman

[Oct 05, 2019] Everything is fake in the current neoliberal discourse, be it political or economic, and it is not that easy to understand how they are deceiving us. Lies that are so sophisticated that often it is impossible to tell they are actually lies, not facts

[Sep 26, 2019] Did Nancy Pelosi Just Make One Of The Biggest Political Mistakes In History

[Sep 22, 2019] Neoliberalism Political Success, Economic Failure Portside by Robert Kuttner

[Sep 22, 2019] It was neoliberalism that won the cold war

[Sep 19, 2019] Form vs. substance in the neoliberal university

[Sep 17, 2019] The reincarnation of the idea of Soviet Nomenklatura on a new level in a different social system

[Sep 10, 2019] Neoliberal Capitalism at a Dead End by Utsa Patnaik and Prabhat Patnaik

[Sep 10, 2019] How Deep Is the Rot in America s Institutions by Charles Hugh Smith

[Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage

[Sep 09, 2019] What's the True Unemployment Rate in the US? by Jack Rasmus

[Sep 02, 2019] Where is Margaret Thatcher now?

[Sep 02, 2019] Questions Nobody Is Asking About Jeffrey Epstein by Eric Rasmusen

[Sep 02, 2019] Is it Cynical to Believe the System is Corrupt by Bill Black

[Aug 30, 2019] Over 50 and unemployed: Don t panic!

[Aug 21, 2019] Trump's Deficit Economy is bonanza for large coporation but not for the US workers. Fiscal stimulus now is just pushing on the string

[Aug 20, 2019] Trump Promised Massive Infrastructure Projects -- Instead We ve Gotten Nothing>

[Aug 20, 2019] Trump is about the agony. The agony of the US centered global neoliberal empire.

[Aug 18, 2019] IV- MICHELS: THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY by Dr. Mustafa Delican

[Aug 14, 2019] Charge of anti-Semitism as a sign of a bitter factional struggle in UK Labor Party between neoliberal and alternatives to neoliberalism wings

[Aug 14, 2019] The Citadels of America s Elites Fractured and At Odds with Each Other by Alastair Crooke

[Aug 14, 2019] There is little chance that Western elites will behave any differently than a street corner drug dealer

[Aug 13, 2019] "Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power."

[Aug 12, 2019] New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has called Epstein's death "way too convenient."

[Aug 11, 2019] One weak spot of the conspiracy theory that Epstein was killed: Why not terminate him overseas before his return? No mess, no fuss

[Aug 11, 2019] https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/ by By Whitney Webb

[Aug 04, 2019] We see that the neoliberal utopia tends imposes itself even upon the rulers.

[Aug 04, 2019] to the liberal economists, free markets were markets free from rent seeking, while to the neoliberals free markets are free from government regulation.

[Aug 04, 2019] Neoliberalism Political Success, Economic Failure

[Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements

[Jul 29, 2019] Looks like Epstein turned informant for Mueller s FBI in 2008. Likely earlier

[Jul 29, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson

[Jul 26, 2019] Tucker What should happen to those who lied about Russian collusion

[Jul 25, 2019] The destiny of the USA is now tied to the destiny of neoliberalism (much like the USSR and Bolshevism)

[Jul 25, 2019] The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus On The Depraved Nature Of America s Elite

[Jul 24, 2019] Elizabeth Warren Seeks to Cut Private Equity Down to Size

[Jul 15, 2019] Elizabeth Warren Has Made Her Story America's Story

[Jul 14, 2019] MODELS OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES Political Issues We Concern

[Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then

[Jul 05, 2019] Who Won the Debate? Tulsi Gabbard let the anti-war genie out of the bottle by Philip Giraldi

[Jul 05, 2019] Globalisation- the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world - World news by Nikil Saval

[Jul 05, 2019] The UK public finally realized that the Globalist/Open Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends

[Jul 05, 2019] The World Bank and IMF 2019 by Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner

[Jul 02, 2019] Yep! The neolibs hate poor people and have superiority complex

[Jun 29, 2019] Latest Weapon Of US Imperialism Liquified Natural Gas

[Jun 27, 2019] The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East by C.J. Hopkins

[Jun 25, 2019] Tucker US came within minutes of war with Iran

[Jun 23, 2019] It never stops to amaze me how the US neoliberals especially of Republican variety claims to be Christian

[Jun 23, 2019] These submerged policies obscure the role of government and exaggerate that of the market. As a result, citizens are unaware not only of the benefits they receive, but of the massive advantages given to powerful interests, such as insurance companies and the financial industry.

[Jun 23, 2019] The return of fundamentalist nationalism is arguably a radicalized form of neoliberalism

[Jun 22, 2019] Use of science by the US politicians

[Jun 21, 2019] A Slow Death The Ills of the Neoliberal Academic

[Jun 19, 2019] America s Suicide Epidemic

[Jun 19, 2019] Bias bias the inclination to accuse people of bias by James Thompson

[Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf

[Jun 05, 2019] Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping its privileges then controllers.

[Jun 05, 2019] Do Spies Run the World by Israel Shamir

[May 31, 2019] US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom'...and this is in The Guardian and not The Onion

[May 25, 2019] The Belligerence Of Empire by Kenn Orphan

[May 20, 2019] The dirty art of politicians entrapment: Blackmail, smear campaigns, various traps via honey or corruption, hookers, gay sex, pedophilia, or what-have-you, all or in combination

[May 19, 2019] Some Shocking Facts on the Concentration of Ownership of the US Economy

[May 17, 2019] Shareholder Capitalism, the Military, and the Beginning of the End for Boeing

[May 13, 2019] Not Just Ukraine; Biden May Have A Serious China Problem As Schweizer Exposes Hunter s $1bn Deal

[May 13, 2019] Angry Bear Senate Democratic Jackasses and Elmer Fudd

[May 13, 2019] US Foreign Policy as Bellicose as Ever by Serge Halimi

[May 12, 2019] Is rabid warmonger, neocon chickenhawk Bolton a swinger? That s a mental picture that s deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time

[May 11, 2019] Has Privatization Benefitted the Public? by Jomo Kwame Sundaram

[May 11, 2019] Leaked USA s Feb 2018 Plan For A Coup In Venezuela

[May 09, 2019] Another face of austerity, or Trump and his mistreses

[Apr 28, 2019] Prisoners of Overwork A Dilemma by Peter Dorman

[Apr 27, 2019] Why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both in the USA and internationally

[Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany

[Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

[Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

[Apr 13, 2019] For those IT guys who want to change the specalty

[Apr 13, 2019] Justice under neoliberalism

[Aug 14, 2019] There is little chance that Western elites will behave any differently than a street corner drug dealer

[Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times

[Dec 21, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

[Apr 07, 2019] There is no doubt the tight rock structures which are much more difficult to extract oil from than sandstone reservoir can be stimulated in different ways with good result. But that costs a lot of money.

[Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney

[Apr 03, 2019] What We Can Learn From 1920s Germany by Brian E. Fogarty

[Apr 03, 2019] Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the US

[Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

[Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil

[Mar 29, 2019] Trumps billionaire coup dιtat: Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history

[Mar 25, 2019] Russiagate was never about substance, it was about who gets to image-manage the decline of a turbo-charged, self-harming neoliberal capitalism by Jonathan Cook

[Mar 25, 2019] Trump Privatizes America by Michael Hudson

[Mar 25, 2019] The US steel industry problems are systemic in nature; tariffs are just band aid, more is needed to be done to revive this industry

[Mar 25, 2019] The Mass Psychology of Trumpism by Eli Zaretsky

[Mar 17, 2019] As Hemingway replied to Scott Fitzgerald assertion The rich are different than you and me : yes, they have more money.

[Mar 16, 2019] (Global) peak oil comes in phases. As Art Berman said, shale oil is oil's retirement party.

[Mar 15, 2019] Patriots Turning To #YangGang In Response To Trump, Conservatism Inc. Failure by James Kirkpatrick

[Mar 15, 2019] Will Democrats Go Full Hawk by Jack Hunter

[Mar 11, 2019] The university professors, who teach but do not learn: neoliberal shill DeJong tries to prolong the life of neoliberalism in the USA

[Mar 02, 2019] The Trump presidency From the Manhattan underworld to the White House by Patrick Martin

[Feb 26, 2019] Neoliberalism by Julie Wilson

[Feb 26, 2019] THE CRISIS OF NEOLIBERALISM by Julie A. Wilson

[Feb 24, 2019] David Stockman on Peak Trump : Undrainable swamp (which is on Pentagon side of Potomac river) and fantasy of MAGA (which become MIGA -- make Israel great again)

[Feb 22, 2019] Neo-McCarthyism is used to defend the US empirical policies. Branding dissidents as Russian stooges is a loophole that allow to suppress dissident opinions

[Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

[Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

[Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill

[Feb 16, 2019] MSM Begs For Trust After Buzzfeed Debacle by Caitlin Johnstone

[Feb 15, 2019] Consumption of liquid fuels grows over the next decade, before broadly plateauing in the 2030s

[Feb 15, 2019] You can see how the definitions are going to blur and they're going to allow declaring oil production numbers to be anything that they want them to be.

[Feb 15, 2019] FOIA Docs Reveal Obama FBI Covered Up Chart Of Potential Hillary Clinton Crimes

[Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished

[Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber

[Feb 12, 2019] Older Workers Need a Different Kind of Layoff A 60-year-old whose position is eliminated might be unable to find another job, but could retire if allowed early access to Medicare

[Feb 11, 2019] The current diploma mills are the result of the consecutive waves of university reforms since the 1990s to ground knowledge production on market principles. If university employees behave like ruthless rent-seekers, it is because they are forced to do so by the incentive structures that have been imposed on them by Johan Sφderberg

[Feb 10, 2019] Neoliberalism is dead. Now let's repair our democratic institutions by Richard Denniss

[Feb 05, 2019] The bottom line is that this preoccupation with the 'headline number' for the current month as a single datapoint that is promoted by Wall Street and the Government for official economic data is a nasty neoliberal propaganda trick. You need to analise the whole time serioes to get an objective picture

[Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

[Feb 03, 2019] Neoliberalism and Christianity

[Feb 03, 2019] Pope Francis denounces trickle-down economics by Aaron Blake

[Feb 03, 2019] Evangelii Gaudium Apostolic Exhortation on the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today's World (24 November 2013)

[Jul 29, 2019] Michael Hudson Trump s Brilliant Strategy to Dismember US Dollar Hegemony by Michael Hudson

[Feb 02, 2019] The Immorality and Brutal Violence of Extreme Greed

[Feb 01, 2019] Christianity Opposes Neoliberalism by Robert Lindsay

[Jan 29, 2019] These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don t be fooled by their progressive veneer by Bhaskar Sunkara

[Jan 29, 2019] The Language of Neoliberal Education by Henry Giroux

[Jan 29, 2019] A State of Neoliberalism by Kevin "Rashid" Johnson (New African Black Panther Party)

[Jan 29, 2019] The Religious Fanaticism of Silicon Valley Elites by Paul Ingrassia

[Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

[Jan 24, 2019] No One Said Rich People Were Very Sharp Davos Tries to Combat Populism by Dean Baker

[Jan 23, 2019] When neoliberalism became the object of jokes, it is clear that its time has passed

[Jan 23, 2019] We need political mobilization to fight neoliberalism

[Jan 22, 2019] The French Anti-Neoliberal Revolution. On the conditions for its success by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

[Jan 19, 2019] According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks

[Jan 14, 2019] Nanci Pelosi and company at the helm of the the ship the Imperial USA

[Jan 13, 2019] Catherine Austin Fitts – Federal Government Running Secret Open Bailout

[Jan 13, 2019] Tucker Carlson Routs Conservatism Inc. On Unrestrained Capitalism -- And Immigration by Washington Watcher

[Jan 13, 2019] There is no free market! It's all crooked by financial oligarchy!

[Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating Fox News

[Jan 12, 2019] Tucker Carlson has sparked the most interesting debate in conservative politics by Jane Coaston

[Jan 11, 2019] Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming

[Jan 11, 2019] How Shocking Was Shock Therapy

[Jan 08, 2019] The smaller the financial sector is the more real wealth there is for the rest of society to enjoy. The bigger the financial sector becomes the more money it siphons off from the productive sectors

[Jan 08, 2019] Rewriting Economic Thought - Michael Hudson

[Jan 08, 2019] The Financial Sector Is the Greatest Parasite in Human History by Ben Strubel

[Jan 08, 2019] No, wealth isn t created at the top. It is merely devoured there by Rutger Bregman

[Jan 07, 2019] Russian Orthodox Church against liberal globalization, usury, dollar hegemony, and neocolonialism

[Jan 07, 2019] The 1920's were marked by a credit expansion, a significant growth in consumer debt, the creation of asset bubbles, and the proliferation of financial instruments and leveraged investments. Now we have exactly the same trends

[Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

[May 23, 2017] CIA, the cornerstone of the deep state has agenda that is different from the US national interest and reflect agenda of the special interest groups such as Wall Street bankers and MIC

Sites



Etc

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2018 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time and without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.

The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: January, 04, 2020