Softpanorama

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

Loss of trust in neoliberal elite bulletin, 2017

Home 2999 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... ' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers. ..."
"... The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism', the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers. ..."
"... Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns. ..."
"... The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite. ..."
"... The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists. ..."
"... In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Throughout the US and European corporate and state media, right and left, we are told that ' populism' has become the overarching threat to democracy, freedom and . . . free markets. The media's ' anti-populism' campaign has been used and abused by ruling elites and their academic and intellectual camp followers as the principal weapon to distract, discredit and destroy the rising tide of mass discontent with ruling class-imposed austerity programs, the accelerating concentration of wealth and the deepening inequalities.

We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ' populism' and its multiple usages. Then we will turn to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements and parties dubbed ' populist' by the ideologues of ' anti-populism' .

Conceptual Manipulation

In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ' anti-populism ' it is necessary to examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.

Populism emerged during the 19 th and 20 th century as an ideology, movement and government in opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing monopolistic practices of the 'robber barons', the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.

In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power. What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters ('compradores'), bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted 'third way' politics by opposing imperialism on the right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.

Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism as 'authoritarian' and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as 'a threat to Western Christian civilization'. Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as 'fascists' . . . even as they won numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.

The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today's ' anti-populists' in the media are calling ' populism' . In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism , a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class. Both 'anti's' have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their 'pro-capitalist' privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as 'pro-capitalist', pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ' anti-populist' .

' Anti-populism' is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-'rebels' (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers.

The economic origins of ' anti-populism' are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ' populism', the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.

Historic 'anti-populism' has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance growing fiscal deficits.

The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism

What the current anti-populists ideologues label ' populism' has little to do with the historical movements.

Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements and parties, denounced as 'populist' by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ' populists' attack the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ' populists' support imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.

Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning popular multi-class movements and regimes.

Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.

One has only to compare the currently demonized ' populist' Donald Trump with the truly populist US President Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution, and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media campaign has become.

The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a 'populist' when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.

The media's ' anti-populists' ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ' populists' . In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ' populist' for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists.

In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ' anti-populism' is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ' Anti-populism' has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters.

The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the 'right' with the 'left'; to sidelight the latter and promote the former; to amalgamate rightwing 'rallies' with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular mass leaders.

Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the 'anti-populist' chorus. They have failed to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate populists in the name of 'anti-fascism'. Leftwing writers, claiming to 'combat the far-right enemies of the people' , overlook the fact that they are 'fellow-travelling' with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees- not immigrants –and concentrated immense wealth.

The bankruptcy of today's ' anti-populist' left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets!

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

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
May 05, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."

Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker, Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."

Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.

The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.

[Dec 29, 2017] As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

Notable quotes:
"... Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't surveilling the West. ..."
"... What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged. Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the mob war. ..."
"... As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well, but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Media and social media tycoons - all could be taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic. ..."
"... I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples. ..."
Dec 29, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

VietnamVet , Dec 26, 2017 3:40:43 PM | 30

Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't surveilling the West.

Victoria Nuland's EU rant was released. Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged. Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the mob war.

NemesisCalling , Dec 26, 2017 4:39:00 PM | 36 karlof1 , Dec 26, 2017 4:42:57 PM | 37
Name of Me | Dec 26, 2017 12:13:28 PM | 2

The US Government was controlling media well before the CIA's creation. Please take a little time to learn about George Seldes whose 1929 book You Can't Print That!: The Truth Behind the News, 1918–1928 is vastly informative with original copies easy to find under $15, or even online through this link . Indeed, numerous works of his are digitized. I.F. Stone followed in Seldes's footsteps, and the website with his collected writings is here . Perhaps one of the least known episodes of US Government media manipulation was related to the atomic bomb crimes, an event nearly 100% airbrushed from history books, and of course the ongoing attempt to cover up one of the biggest crimes of all time.

My mention of media manipulation by the US Government wouldn't be complete without including the 100% blackout that was to apply to the discussions in Philadelphia that led to the 1787 Constitution -- the document that elevated the "natural aristocracy" into the catbird seat ensuring their control of the federal government until it's overthrown via revolution.

Fortunately, Madison and others kept copious notes that were eventually published long after the fate of Commoners was sealed, so we know that Aristocracy viewed its contemporary deplorables no differently than how HRC and today's 1% view them/us.

Pft , Dec 26, 2017 7:09:07 PM | 43
Americans and much of the rest of the world are the target of an immense psyop . Propaganda techniques going back to Bernay and WWI have been expanded on and perfected. Infiltration and control is lot limited to the print media and TV news stations but also , hollywood movies/TV shows , academia (history, economics, etc) , book publishing, blogs and social media. The last few bastions of truth will be eliminated with the end of net neutrality.

As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well, but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission Accomplished.

Peter AU 1 , Dec 26, 2017 7:58:27 PM | 49
"We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in foreign countries. One hand will wash the other."

Something I have often thought about. Media and social media tycoons - all could be taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic.

I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples.

[Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden. ..."
"... In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post . ..."
"... In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive. ..."
"... In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA. ..."
"... The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions" ..."
"... It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue. ..."
"... The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump. ..."
"... The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story, insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news story will continue indefinitely. ..."
"... What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e. there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard, rather than soft, landing near the end of the road. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.S. intelligence services to limit the publication of the NSA files obtained by Edward Snowden.

In May 2013 Edward Snowden fled to Hongkong and handed internal documents from the National Security Agency (NSA) to four journalists, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill of the Guardian and separately to Barton Gellman who worked for the Washington Post . Some of those documents were published by Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian , others by Barton Gellman in the Washington Post . Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight.

In July 2013 the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive.

In August 2013 Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post for some $250 million. In 2012 Bezos, the founder, largest share holder and CEO of Amazon, had already a cooperation with the CIA. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. In March 2013 Amazon signed a $600 million deal to provide computing services for the CIA.

In October 2013 Pierre Omidyar, the owner of Ebay, founded First Look Media and hired Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The total planned investment was said to be $250 million. It took up to February 2014 until the new organization launched its first site, the Intercept . Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site. Its management is said to be chaotic . It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet. Omidyar has worked, together with the U.S. government, to force regime change onto Ukraine. He had strong ties with the Obama administration.

Snowden had copies of some 20,000 to 58,000 NSA files . Only 1,182 have been published . Bezos and Omidyar obviously helped the NSA to keep more than 95% of the Snowden archive away from the public. The Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services and the Obama administration.

The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. Bezos is estimated to own a shameful $90 billion. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. Omidyar has a net worth of some $9.3 billion. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".

It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue.

The Intercept burned a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an (intentional?) mistranslation of one of his speeches. It additionally hired a Syrian supporter of the CIA's "regime change by Jihadis" in Syria. Despite its pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from U.S. policies.

The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton campaign, that Russia attempted to influence U.S. elections or even "colluded" with Trump.

Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them.

In Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim up. Whatever that writer wrote (see list at end) was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.S. election. The piece then dives into various cyber-operations against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed.

A second story in the paper today is based on "a classified GRU report obtained by The Washington Post." It claims that the Russian military intelligence service GRU started a social media operation one day after the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was illegally removed from his office in a U.S. regime change operation . What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from 2014, who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of bovine excrement.

An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell and Mike Rogers. Morell had hoped to become CIA boss under a President Hillary Clinton. The op-ed (which includes a serious misunderstanding of "deterrence") asserts that Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States :

Russia's information operations tactics since the election are more numerous than can be listed here . But to get a sense of the breadth of Russian activity, consider the messaging spread by Kremlin-oriented accounts on Twitter, which cybersecurity and disinformation experts have tracked as part of the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy.

The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote is "#merrychristmas".


bigger

When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not even one plausible operation they could cite. Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit of weapon producers and U.S. influence in Europe.

Cont. reading: From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

11:53 AM | Comments (137)

G , Dec 26, 2017 12:10:03 PM | 1

If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet? Surely he would have said something about the Intercept and Greenwald keeping important stories buried by now. Yet, as far as I can tell, he has a good relationship with Greenwald. I find it hard to believe hat a man who literally gave up everything he had in life to leak important docs would remain silent for so long about a publishing cover up. I don't really like the Intercept and I think your analysis of its content is accurate, but I do find it hard to believe that the NSA docs were "bought" back by the CIA.
Ort , Dec 26, 2017 1:41:21 PM | 16
@G | 1

If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet?
_____________________________________________________

My understanding is that early on, Snowden placed his trove of documents in the exclusive care of Glenn Greenwald and his associates. Although Snowden has since become a public figure in his own right, and his opinions on state-security events and issues are solicited, as far as I know Snowden has no direct responsibility for managing the material he downloaded.

I haven't followed Snowden closely enough to know how familiar he may be with the contents of the reported "20,000 to 58,000 NSA files" turned over to GG/Omidyar. Snowden presumably took pains to acquire items of interest in his cache as he accumulated classified material, but even if he has extraordinary powers of recall he may not remember precisely what remains unreleased.

FWIW, I was troubled from the first by one of the mainstays of GG's defense, or rationale, when it became clear that he was the principal, and perhaps sole, executive "curator" of the Snowden material. In order to reassure and placate nervous "patriots"-- and GG calls himself a "patriot"-- he repeatedly emphasized that great care was being taken to vet the leaked information before releasing it.

GG's role as whistleblower Snowden's enabler and facilitator was generally hailed uncritically by progressive-liberals and civil-liberties advocates, to a point where public statements that should've raised skeptical doubts and questions were generally passively accepted by complacent admirers.

Specifically, my crap detectors signaled "red alert" early on, when Greenwald (still affiliated with "The Guardian", IIRC) took great pains to announce that his team was working closely with the US/UK governments to vet and screen Snowden's material before releasing any of it; GG repeatedly asserted that he was reviewing the material with the relevant state-security agencies to ensure that none of the released material would compromise or jeopardize government operatives and/or national security.

WTF? Bad enough that Greenwald was requiring the world to exclusively trust his judgment in deciding what should be released and what shouldn't. He was also making it clear that he wasn't exactly committed to disclosing "the worst" of the material "though the heavens fall".

In effect, as GG was telling the world that he could be trusted to manage the leaked information responsibly, he was also telling the world that it simply had to trust his judgment in this crucial role.

To me, there was clearly a subliminal message for both Western authorities and the public: don't worry, we're conscientious, patriotic leak-masters. We're not going to irresponsibly disclose anything too radical, or politically/socially destabilizing.

GG and the Omidyar Group have set themselves up as an independent "brand" in the new field of whistleblower/hacker impresario and leak-broker.

Like only buying NFL-approved merchandise, or fox-approved eggs, the public is being encouraged to only buy (into) Intercept-approved Snowden Leaks™. It's a going concern, which lends itself much more to the "modified limited hangout" approach than freely tossing all the biggest eggs out of the basket.

GG found an opportunity to augment his rising career as a self-made investigative journalist and civil-liberties advocate. Now he's sitting pretty, the celebrity point man for a lucrative modified limited hangout enterprise. What is wrong with this picture?

Bart Hansen , Dec 26, 2017 1:51:59 PM | 17
#1: I suspect that Snowden needs Glenn and Laura as liaisons to the outside world.
G , Dec 26, 2017 2:05:23 PM | 18
@16 I just see no evidence of that aside from fitting the narrative of people who are convinced of a cover up in leaked docs. Moreover, there is no way Russia would continue to offer Snowden asylum if he was gov agent. I'm sure Russian intelligence did a very thorough background check on him.

@17 that's simply not true. He regularly tweets, gives online talks and publishes on his own. He has not used either Poitras or Greenwald as a means of communication for years. And he has never dropped a single hint of being disappointed or frustrated with how documents and info was published.

It just seems so implausible given the total lack of any sign of Snowden's dissatisfaction.

jayc , Dec 26, 2017 2:31:15 PM | 22
The revelation that the sole Russiagate "evidence" was the so-called Steele Dossier - i.e. opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign - which was used by the intelligence community to not only begin the public assertions of Trump's perfidy but to then initiate FISA approved surveillance on the Trump campaign, that is truly astonishing. Instructive then that the NY Times, Washington Post, etc have yet to acknowledge these facts to their readers, and instead have effectively doubled down on the story, insisting that the Russiagate allegations are established fact and constitute "objective reality." That suggests this fake news story will continue indefinitely.

What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i.e. there is a Clinton reality versus a Trump reality, or a Russian reality versus a "Western" reality, facts and documentation be damned. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard, rather than soft, landing near the end of the road.

Jen , Dec 26, 2017 2:50:16 PM | 25
G @ 1 and 18: My understanding is that Edward Snowden has been advised (warned?) by the Russian government or his lawyer in Moscow not to reveal any more than he has said so far. The asylum Moscow has offered him may be dependent on his keeping discreet. That may include not saying much about The Intercept, in case his communications are followed by the NSA or any other of the various US intel agencies which could lead to their tracking his physical movements in Russia and enable any US-connected agent or agency (including one based in Russia) to trace him, arrest him or kill him, and cover up and frame the seizure or murder in such a way as to place suspicion or blame on the Russian government or on local criminal elements in Russia.

I believe that Snowden does have a job in Russia and possibly this job does not permit him the time to say any more than what he currently tweets or says online.

There is nothing in MoA's article to suggest that Glenn Greenwald is deliberately burying stories in The Intercept. B has said that its management is chaotic which could suggest among other things that Greenwald himself is dissatisfied with its current operation.

G , Dec 26, 2017 2:57:40 PM | 26
@21 I'm not disputing that moneyed interests might have been leaned on by the CIA to stop publishing sensitive info. What I'm disputing is the idea that people like Greenwald have deliberately with-held information that is in the public interest. I doubt that, regardless of the strength of the Intercept as a publication.

@25 What interest would the Russian gov have in helping protect NSA? I assume Russia loves the idea of the US Intel agencies being embarrassed. Snowden speaks his mind about plenty of domestic and international events in US. I have never seen him act like he's being censored.

Jen , Dec 26, 2017 3:46:44 PM | 31
G @ 25: Moscow would have no interest in helping protect the NSA or any other US intel agency. The Russians would have advised Snowden not to say more than he has said so far, not because they are interested in helping the NSA but because they can only protect him as long as he is discreet and does not try to say or publish any more that would jeopardise his safety or give Washington an excuse to pressure Moscow to extradite him back to the US. That would include placing more sanctions on Russia until Snowden is given up.

There is the possibility also that Snowden trusts (or trusted) Greenwald to know what to do with the NSA documents. Perhaps that trust was naively placed - we do not know.

Red Ryder , Dec 26, 2017 3:48:47 PM | 33
b, a big exposition of facts, rich in links to more facts.

This is important material for all to understand.

Snowden is "the squirrel over there!" A distraction turned into a hope.
Compared to Assange, who is being slow-martyred in captivity, Snowden is a boy playing with gadgets.

Why did not Snowden make certain a copy of his theft went to Wikileaks? That would have been insurance.
Since he did not, it all could be just a distraction.

What is known about the Snowden affair is we received proof of what we knew. Not much else. For those who didn't know, they received news.
And ever since, the shape of things from the Deep State/Shadow Government/IC has been lies and warmongering against American freedoms and world cooperation among nations.

Fascism is corporate + the police state. The US government is a pure fascist tyranny that also protects the Empire and Global Hegemony.

We connect the dots and it's always the same picture. It was this way in the 60s,70s,80s,90s, 00s, and this forlorn decade.
Fascism more bold each decade. Billionaires and millionaires have always been in the mix.

[Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship , Dec 27, 2017 10:17:37 AM | 92

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Dec 26, 2017 3:56:16 PM | 35
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse.

Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news.

As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.

[Dec 28, 2017] Working Class w- No Living Wage The Absurd Math of US Income

Notable quotes:
"... less than $100 ..."
"... the International Institute for Sustainable Development ..."
"... gross domestic product ..."
"... GDP ..."
"... employment-rate ..."
"... gross national income ..."
"... (total employed) × (mean-average wages per-year) = 140,400,040 × $49,630 = $6,968,053,985,200 or ..."
"... ~$7 trillion ..."
"... managers, janitors, lawyers, nurses, librarians, bartenders, and everyone else who had a job in 2016 ..."
"... Total US Income = $18,750,000,000,000 Combined Wages & Salaries of All Employed Folks = $6,968,053,985,200 Income from Federal Social Benefits = $2,039,300,000,000 ..."
"... Total Income - (Wages & Salaries + Benefits) = $9,763,546,014,800 ..."
"... every commodity ..."
"... every last grain ..."
"... every waste bin ..."
"... every single cappuccino ..."
"... Property income ..."
"... unearned income ..."
"... interest ..."
"... interest, rent, and corporate profits ..."
"... with ..."
"... just as valuable ..."
"... honest work ..."
"... In solidarity, John Laurits ..."
"... If you enjoy these posts, consider buying the writer a cup of coffee ..."
"... or making a monthly donation ..."
"... --  it's like a voluntary subscription directly to an artist & journalist ..."
"... I'm all about it! ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | extranewsfeed.com

Working Class w/ No Living Wage: The Absurd Math of US Income

As the stock market gleefully claws its way to more record-breaking highs, Forbes reports a full 56% of US Americans now have less than $1,000 to their names  --  and 25% have less than $100 . But the economy, as they say, is booming. Even with 165 million on the breadline and an hourly minimum wage of only $7.25 nationally, surging Amazon share prices have added $13 billion to Jeff Bezos' net-worth since mid-September. For perspective, $13 billion is enough to pay the student-loan debts of 432,000 millennials. It's also plenty to end world hunger for a year, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development . And Bezos  --  now the world's richest man  --  smashes a bottle of organic champagne to celebrate his new wind-farm. The question is  --  how do markets grow as the wealth of the people shrinks and wages fall? What do the commentariat mean by "economic growth" when the nation's income can hardly keep half of its people's heads above water?

The National Income:
How Much Value is Created by the US Economy?

There are a lot of ways to measure economies  --  for example, gross domestic product or GDP is the value of everything a country produces ( minus the cost to produce it ) and the employment-rate measures the number of paying jobs. The gross national income or GNI is what you get after adding up all of the income earned by everyone. GNI includes every citizen ( even in other countries ) and every kind of income from wages or salaries to social security and unemployment benefits, investment returns, or the sale of assets like houses and cars.

GNI is basically the total value of all money paid to everyone, minus the expenses of doing the business everyone is getting paid for. According to the macroeconomic accounts on the Federal Reserve's website, the GNI was about $18.7 trillion dollars in 2016 for the US.

Gross National Wages:
Every Paycheck Combined

Now, how much of America's multi-trillion-dollar paycheck ends up in the pockets of people who work in the US? Since the "gross national wage" is apparently not as important to US media-outlets as Jeff Bezos' latest earnings or the many triumphs of the Dow Jones, this number is a bit more camouflaged. Luckily, the total number who are employed by all industries and their average wages or salaries can be found in the bowels of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' website. Multiplying these two numbers  --  the total employed by all industries and their mean-average yearly wages  --  gives the combined wages and salaries of everyone with a job in the US, from the clerks and mechanics to the brain-surgeons and corporate executives.

(total employed) × (mean-average wages per-year) =
140,400,040 × $49,630 = $6,968,053,985,200 or
~$7 trillion

$7 trillion dollars to split between all employed people in the United States. Everyone who built everything and provided every service  --   managers, janitors, lawyers, nurses, librarians, bartenders, and everyone else who had a job in 2016   --  collectively earned about $7 trillion of the $18.7 trillion national paycheck.

But who gets the remaining $11,781,946,014,800?

Federal Benefits & Social Welfare

The national income also includes money received from government benefits, such as disability, retirement, and social security. The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists the 2016 total federal benefits received at $2.0393 trillion.

Total US Income = $18,750,000,000,000
Combined Wages & Salaries of All Employed Folks = $6,968,053,985,200
Income from Federal Social Benefits = $2,039,300,000,000
Total Income - (Wages & Salaries + Benefits) = $9,763,546,014,800

And about $9.8 trillion is still missing.

Literally All Working People Combined
Earn Less Than Half of American Income

According to the BLS data, there are an estimated 146 million people who hold some sort of job in the US. These 146 million workers create every commodity , serve every meal , harvest every last grain , empty every waste bin , teach every student , build every house , and pour milk into every single cappuccino in the nation. And together they take about 37.2% of the American pie. All of the so-called "handouts" from the federal government  --  social security, retirement, disability, and other benefits  --  only amount to another 10.8% of the GNI.

The combined income from all employment and federal benefits still only adds up to 48% of America's paycheck. And that means that the other 52% must be paid to someone  --  or some thing   --  without a job.

Unearned Income: Landlords, Industrial Capitalists, & Wall Street Investors

Property income   --  or, as the classical economists knew it, unearned income   --  is earned through ownership ( rather than wages , which are earned by time spent working ). There are three basic types of unearned income. Rent is paid to owners of land or other natural resources, profit is paid to owners of capital ( like factories, equipment, machines, etc. ), and interest is paid to owners of financial assets ( like stocks, securities, debt, etc. ). The $13 billion Jeff Bezos made when Amazon share prices increased, for example, was "earned" by owning something rather than creating something or providing some service.

This type of income is a bit harder to keep track of  --  especially considering that the wealthy seem to be in the habit of using offshore tax-havens and shell companies ( like those revealed in the Panama and Paradise Papers ) to stash their fortunes. With that being said, the US Department of Commerce's accounts show nearly $7 trillion   --  or about the same as 146 million working people made combined  --  paid out for interest, rent, and corporate profits . Another trillion and a half or so was paid to "proprietors" or, more colloquially, the owners.

And now we have a rough sketch of the great American paycheck:

Are Workers Worthy of Their Wages?
Not in the United States of America!

There are two basic components to the whole economic activity and wealth of human civilization  --   capital and labor . On one hand there is capital  --  all of the natural resources, materials, lands, machines, and everything that everything is made of and made with   --  and, on the other hand, there are the countless workers whose labor-power transforms that stuff into the societies we live in.

Without the time, energy, creativity, and sacrifices made by the 146 million human beings who make everything and offer every service, the wealth of people like Jeff Bezos would not exist. Business magnates like Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates need working classes  --  working classes do not need them . And yet Bezos, Buffet, and Gates now possess more wealth than the bottom 50% of the nation combined. Through the prism of the American economy, people like Bezos, Buffet, and Gates are just as valuable as the poorest 160 million of the working classes who collectively labor billions of hours each week.

And that is unfair  --   that doesn't add up. The "American Dream"  --  the whole idea about how anyone willing to work hard should be able to prosper or, at the very least, make ends meet  --  is objectively untrue . The truth is  --  if you want to earn wealth in the US or even if you only want to earn enough to pay the bills on time  --   honest work is not a very good strategy.

In solidarity,
John Laurits

If you enjoy these posts, consider buying the writer a cup of coffee using PayPal or making a monthly donation using Patreon --  it's like a voluntary subscription directly to an artist & journalist

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.

  • Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits

    John Laurits is not an award-winning journalist. Follow to watch the comic futility of John's quest to defeat capitalism with art https://www.johnlaurits.com

  • Extra Newsfeed Extra Newsfeed

    the same political rants you see on Facebook, but they're well written.

  • More on Bernie Sanders from Extra Newsfeed The Day the Russians made Donna Brazile expose Hillary Clinton & the Democratic Party Go to the profile of CharliePeach🍑 CharliePeach🍑 Related reads 7 Effective Communication Techniques That Will Make You Excellent Go to the profile of Karim Elsheikh Karim Elsheikh Also tagged Politics Don't Count America Out Go to the profile of John McCain John McCain Responses Conversation between Martha Menard, PhD and John Laurits . Go to the profile of Martha Menard, PhD Martha Menard, PhD Dec 6

    Interesting article, John. I work for a financial tech company that provides personal financial planning to employees as part of their benefits package. A lot of people are struggling  --  about 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 50% of people can't handle a $500 unexpected expense without putting it on a credit card, and about 33% have saved 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 6


    Yes! Thank you for mentioning unpaid domestic labor, as well as the roles that racism and patriarchy play in the awful saga of inequality  --  these are more than crucial to any real class analysis. My biggest regret about this article is that I was unable to include a discussion of unpaid domestic labor and how it contributes to the greater picture of Conversation with John Laurits . Go to the profile of LaMar Going LaMar Going Nov 30


    I am weary of half-truths, lies and ignorance from writers like this.
    3 responses Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Nov 30

    1. False dichotomy. Option C: In the haste of your search for some technicality to use in your attempt at attacking the article's credibility, you did not consider that the second half of my casual description of GDP as "value of everything a country produces minus the cost to produce it" refers to the exclusion of the value of intermediate goods 2 responses Conversation between Joshua Shepard and John Laurits . Go to the profile of Joshua Shepard Joshua Shepard Dec 1


    Great breakdown! This is something I could see myself busting out with some investigative reporting. You took the macro budget and broke it down into the major segments and the makeup of each segment  --  wouldn't it be a great college project to have students across the country further breakdown each segment, using tools to find the inefficiencies? We 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 7


    Hi! Thanks & I'm glad you found the article useful :)

    In response to your question about what I think about using tech to hold them accountable, I say  --  : I'm all about it! In my humble (yet frequently accurate) opinion, one of Marx's most important insights about how revolutionary change occurs was his description of new Conversation between Joe Psotka and John Laurits . Go to the profile of Joe Psotka Joe Psotka Dec 5


    I would like to see how this comparison of GNI into capital and wages has changed historically, and how it might continue to change with automation overwhelming us.

    However, I can't agree completely that the capitalists do nothing to merit their work. They too should be paid wages, just not the obscene one that they get now 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 5


    I'll be writing about automation and the US workweek in my next post :) And to clarify my position  --  as a Marxist libertarian-socialist, I have zero problems with the idea of people accumulating wealth created by their own efforts/labor (which I'd roughly define as the sacrifice of a person's time to create value). When Bezos or any human being 1 response Applause from John Laurits (author) Go to the profile of Allyson Saad Allyson Saad Nov 29


    Substantive piece. Applause from John Laurits (author) Go to the profile of Elsie Brown Elsie Brown Dec 6 interest is paid to owners of financial assets ( like stocks, securities, debt, etc. ). The $13 billion Jeff Bezos made when Amazon share prices increased, for example, was "earned" ...


    Those who own enough money get paid just for holding onto it. That seems deeply wrong. If money could decay in some way no one would hoard it. You'd rather have someone owe you $100 than have $100 in your pocket. 3 responses Conversation with John Laurits . Go to the profile of Regina Bash-Taqi Regina Bash-Taqi Dec 6


    Good information but I don't agree with your description of 'honest' work. The world is changing, so we all need to change with it. There will always be people who are ahead of the curve such as Gates, Bezos and Buffet, but I believe if all of us change our game -- we'll get our share and things will shift. 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 6


    So your solution is for the vast majority of the world's population, the working poor, to just 'change [their] game?' Applause from John Laurits (author) Go to the profile of alex carter alex carter Dec 2


    Great article. This is boiling up to some kind of a head.

    In other words, Got Guillotine? Conversation with John Laurits . Go to the profile of Rod Ruger Rod Ruger Dec 6


    If someone has an idea for a product or service and employs members of the working class to implement that idea, what portion of the resulting income does the dude with the idea get? No ideas/innovation means a stone age existence. 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 6


    Intellectual labor is totally a thing and people ought to be paid for doing that as well  --  and I'm curious as to which part of the post led you to think I might advocate withholding compensation from creatives, inventors, or idea-people? The BLS statistics I use in the post include everyone who sacrifices time from the 24 hours they all have each day Conversation with John Laurits . Go to the profile of Sceptical Meerkat Sceptical Meerkat Dec 9


    Why would somebody me pay more for an American worker if one can hire a Mexican illegal immigrant? 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 9


    Yeah, I'm sure the economic system will somehow result in a different and better outcome if we can only find a way to oppress the poorer, browner workers a bit more 1 response Go to the profile of Sceptical Meerkat Sceptical Meerkat Dec 9 Yeah, I'm sure the economic system will somehow result in a different and better outcome if we can only find a way to oppress the poorer, browner workers a bit more


    Depends better for whom.

    The low qualified qualified workers' wages are undercut by competition from cheaper immigrant workers, so they will win if immigration is controlled while would be immigrant will lose.

    Just wishful thinking and empty talk about the need to increase wagers from people who don't pay those wages is meaningless. 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 9


    Just wishful thinking and empty talk about the need to increase wagers from people who don't pay those wages is meaningless.

    Yep, that's what Czar Nicholas II kept thinking, too 1 response Conversation with John Laurits . Go to the profile of Rick Fischer Rick Fischer Dec 9


    Mr. Laurits slips a few things past us in all his details. His "worth it" criterion is a valid one, in my opinion. Income from doing something that is of value to society does make the income "worth it". (I'm really over-simplifying here. Try not to search too hard for some exception or other.) 1 response Go to the profile of John Laurits John Laurits Dec 9


    You wrote:

    "His descriptions of the red slice, about half the total income, are skimpy, and his examples leave the reader with the vague feeling that that half is not "worth it". Which I surmise is his intent. But it's not entirely true; mostly not true, in fact."

    [Dec 25, 2017] American Carnage by Brad Griffin

    Notable quotes:
    "... It tells me that the bottom line is that Christmas has become a harder season for White families. We are worse off because of BOTH social and economic liberalism which has only benefited an elite few. The bottom half of the White population is now in total disarray – drug addiction, demoralization, divorce, suicide, abortion, atomization, stagnant wages, declining household income and investments – and this dysfunction is creeping up the social ladder. The worst thing we can do is step on the accelerator. ..."
    Dec 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    As we move into 2018, I am swinging away from the Republicans. I don't support the Paul Ryan "Better Way" agenda. I don't support neoliberal economics. I think we have been going in the wrong direction since the 1970s and don't want to continue going down this road.

    1. Opioid Deaths: As we all know, the opioid epidemic has become a national crisis and the White working class has been hit the hardest by it. It is a "sea of despair" out there.
    2. White Mortality: As the family crumbles, religion recedes in his life, and his job prospects dwindle, the middle aged White working class man is turning to drugs, alcohol and suicide: The White suicide rate has soared since 2000:
    3. Median Household Income: The average household in the United States is poorer in 2017 than it was in 1997:
    4. Real GDP: Since the late 1990s, real GDP and real median household income have parted ways:
    5. Productivity and Real Wages: Since the 1970s, the minimum wage has parted ways with productivity gains in the US economy:
    6. Stock Market: Since 2000, the stock market has soared, but 10% of Americans own 80% of stocks. The top 1% owns 38% of stocks. In 2007, 3/4th of middle class households were invested in the stock market, but now only 50% are investors. Overall, 52% of Americans now own stocks, which is down from 65%. The average American has less than $1,000 in their combined checking and savings accounts.

    Do you know what this tells me?

    It tells me that the bottom line is that Christmas has become a harder season for White families. We are worse off because of BOTH social and economic liberalism which has only benefited an elite few. The bottom half of the White population is now in total disarray – drug addiction, demoralization, divorce, suicide, abortion, atomization, stagnant wages, declining household income and investments – and this dysfunction is creeping up the social ladder. The worst thing we can do is step on the accelerator.

    Paul Ryan and his fellow conservatives look at this and conclude we need MORE freedom. We need lower taxes, more free trade, more deregulation, weaker unions, more immigration and less social safety net spending. He wants to follow up tax reform with entitlement reform in 2018. I can't but see how this is going to make an already bad situation for the White working class even worse.

    I'm not rightwing in the sense that these people are. I think their policies are harmful to the nation. I don't think they feel any sense of duty and obligation to the working class like we do. They believe in liberal abstractions and make an Ayn Rand fetish out of freedom whereas we feel a sense of solidarity with them grounded in race, ethnicity and culture which tempers class division. We recoil at the evisceration of the social fabric whereas conservatives celebrate this blind march toward plutocracy.

    Do the wealthy need to own a greater share of the stock market? Do they need to own a greater share of our national wealth? Do we need to loosen up morals and the labor market? Do we need more White children growing up in financially stressed, broken homes on Christmas? Is the greatest problem facing the nation spending on anti-poverty programs? Paul Ryan and the True Cons think so.

    Yeah, I don't think so. I also think it is a good thing right now that we aren't associated with the mainstream Right. In the long run, I bet this will pay off for us. I predict this platform they have been standing on for decades now, which they call the conservative base, is going to implode on them. Donald Trump was only the first sign that Atlas is about to shrug.

    (Republished from Occidental Dissent by permission of author or representative)

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

    Highly recommended!
    Nice illustration of ideologically based ostrakism as practiced in Academia: "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People - powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize other insiders."
    Notable quotes:
    "... A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned. ..."
    "... The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for ..."
    "... Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same role which Marxism was installed in the USSR. With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities. ..."
    "... To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality be damned. Money does not smell. ..."
    "... Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys. ..."
    "... "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People - powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize other insiders." ..."
    Apr 04, 2015 | Economist's View

    Darryl FKA Ron -> pgl...

    At the risk of oversimplifying might it not be as simple as stronger leanings towards IS-LM and kind are indicative of a bias towards full employment and stronger leanings towards DSGE, microfoundations, and kind are indicative of a bias towards low inflation?

    IN general I consider over-simplification a fault, if and only if, it is a rigidly adhered to final position. This is to say that over-simplification is always a good starting point and never a good ending point. If in the end your problem was simple to begin with, then the simplified answer would not be OVER-simplified anyway. It is just as bad to over-complicate a simple problem as it is to over-simplify a complex problem. It is easier to build complexity on top of a simple foundation than it is to extract simplicity from a complex foundation.

    A lot of the Chicago School initiative into microfoundations and DSGE may have been motivated by a desire to bind Keynes in a NAIRU straight-jacket. Even though economic policy making is largely done just one step at a time then that is still one step too much if it might violate rentier interests.

    Darryl FKA Ron -> Barry...

    There are two possible (but unlikely) schools of (generously attributed to as) thought for which internal consistency might take precedence over external consistency. One such school wants to consider what would be best in a perfect world full of perfect people and then just assume that is best for the real world just to let the chips fall where they may according to the faults and imperfections of the real world. The second such school is the one whose eyes just glaze over mesmerized by how over their heads they are and remain affraid to ask any question lest they appear stupid.

    A more probable school of thought is that this game was created as a con and a cover for the status quo capitalist establishment to indulge themselves in their hard money and liquidity fetishes, consequences be damned.

    Richard H. Serlin

    Consistency sounds so good, Oh, of course we want consistency, who wouldn't?! But consistent in what way? What exactly do you mean? Consistent with reality, or consistent with people all being superhumans? Which concept is usually more useful, or more useful for the task at hand?

    Essentially, they want models that are consistent with only certain things, and often because this makes their preferred ideology look far better. They want models, typically, that are consistent with everyone in the world having perfect expertise in every subject there is, from finance to medicine to engineering, perfect public information, and perfect self-discipline, and usually on top, frictionless and perfectly complete markets, often perfectly competitive too.

    But a big thing to note is that perfectly consistent people means a level of perfection in expertise, public information, self-discipline, and "rationality", that's extremely at odds with how people actually are. And as a result, this can make the model extremely misleading if it's interpreted very literally (as so often it is, especially by freshwater economists), or taken as The Truth, as Paul Krugman puts it.

    You get things like the equity premium "puzzle", which involves why people don't invest more in stocks when the risk-adjusted return appears to usually be so abnormally good, and this "puzzle" can only be answered with "consistency", that people are all perfectly expert in finance, with perfect information, so they must have some mysterious hidden good reason. It can't be at all that it's because 65% of people answered incorrectly when asked how many reindeer would remain if Santa had to lay off 25% of his eight reindeer ( http://richardhserlin.blogspot.com/2013/12/surveys-showing-massive-ignorance-and.html ).

    Yes, these perfect optimizer consistency models can give useful insights, and help to see what is best, what we can do better, and they can, in some cases, be good as approximations. But to say they should be used only, and interpreted literally, is, well, inconsistent with optimal, rational behavior -- of the economist using them.

    Richard H. Serlin -> Richard H. Serlin...
    Of course, unless the economist using them is doing so to mislead people into supporting his libertarian/plutocratic ideology.

    dilbert dogbert

    As an old broken down mech engineer, I wonder why all the pissing and moaning about micro foundations vs aggregation. In strength of materials equations that aggregate properties work quite well within the boundaries of the questions to be answered. We all know that at the level of crystals, materials have much complexity. Even within crystals there is deeper complexities down to the molecular levels. However, the addition of quantum mechanics adds no usable information about what materials to build a bridge with.

    But, when working at the scale of the most advanced computer chips quantum mechanics is required. WTF! I guess in economics there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories.

    Poor economists, doomed to argue, forever, over how many micro foundations can dance on the head of a pin.

    RGC -> dilbert dogbert...

    Endless discussions about how quantum effects aggregate to produce a material suitable for bridge building crowd out discussions about where and when to build bridges. And if plutocrats fund the endless discussions, we get the prominent economists we have today.

    Darryl FKA Ron -> dilbert dogbert...

    "...I guess in economics there is no quantum mechanics theories or even reliable aggregation theories..."

    [I guess it depends upon what your acceptable confidence interval on reliability is. Most important difference that controls all the domain differences between physical science and economics is that underlying physical sciences there is a deterministic methodology for which probable error is merely a function of the inaccuracy in input metrics WHEREAS economics models are incomplete probabilistic estimating models with no ability to provide a complete system model in a full range of circumstances.

    YOu can design and build a bridge to your load and span requirements with alternative models for various designs with confidence and highly effective accuracy repeatedly. No ecomomic theory, model, or combination of models and theories was ever intended to be used as the blueprint for building an economy from the foundation up.

    With all the formal trappings of economics the only effective usage is to decide what should be done in a given set of predetermined circumstance to reach some modest desired effect. Even that modest goal is exposed to all kinds of risks inherent in assumptions, incomplete information, externalities, and so on that can produce errors of uncertain potential bounds.

    Nonetheless, well done economics can greatly reduce the risks encountered in the random walk of economics policy making. So much so is this true, that the bigger questions in macro-economics policy making is what one is willing to risk and for whom.

    The arguments over internal and external consistency of models is just a convenient misdirection from what policy makers are willing to risk and whose interests they are willing to risk policy decisions for.]

    Darryl FKA Ron -> Peter K....

    unless you have a model which maps the real world fairly closely like quantum mechanics.

    [You set a bar too high. Macro models at best will tell you what to do to move the economy in the direction that you seek to go. They do not even ocme close to the notion of a theory of everything that you have in physics, even the theory of every little thing that is provided by quantum mechanics. Physics is an empty metaphor for economics. Step one is to forgo physics envy in pursuit of understanding suitable applications and domain constraints for economics models.

    THe point is to reach a decision and to understand cause and effect directions. All precision is in the past and present. The future is both imprecise and all that there is that is available to change.

    For the most part an ounce of common sense and some simple narrative models are all that are essential for making those policy decisions in and of themselves. HOWEVER, nation states are not ruled by economist philosopher kings and in the process of concensus decision making by (little r)republican governments then human language is a very imprecise vehicle for communicating logic and reason with respect to the management of complex systems. OTOH, mathematics has given us a universal language for communicating logic and reason that is understood the same by everyone that really understands that language at all. Hence mathematical models were born for the economists to write down their own thinking in clear precise terms and check their own work first and then share it with others so equipped to understand the language of mathematics. Krugman has said as much many times and so has any and every economist worth their salt.]

    likbez -> Syaloch...

    I agree with Pgl and PeterK. Certain commenters like Darryl seem convinced that the Chicago School (if not all of econ) is driven by sinister, class-based motives to come up justifications for favoring the power elite over the masses. But based on what I've read, it seems pretty obvious that the microfoundation guys just got caught up in their fancy math and their desire to produce more elegant, internally consistent models and lost sight of the fact that their models didn't track reality.

    That's completely wrong line of thinking, IMHO.

    Mathematical masturbations are just a smoke screen used to conceal a simple fact that those "economists" are simply banking oligarchy stooges. Hired for the specific purpose to provide a theoretical foundation for revanschism of financial oligarchy after New Deal run into problems. Revanschism that occurred in a form of installing neoliberal ideology in the USA in exactly the same role which Marxism was installed in the USSR.
    With "iron hand in velvet gloves" type of repressive apparatus to enforce it on each and every university student and thus to ensure the continues, recurrent brainwashing much like with Marxism on the USSR universities.

    To ensure continuation of power of "nomenklatura" in the first case and banking oligarchy in the second. Connections with reality be damned. Money does not smell.

    Economic departments fifth column of neoliberal stooges is paid very good money for their service of promoting and sustaining this edifice of neoliberal propaganda. Just look at Greg Mankiw and Rubin's boys.

    But the key problem with neoliberalism is that the cure is worse then disease. And here mathematical masturbations are very handy as a smoke screen to hide this simple fact.

    likbez -> likbez...

    Here is how Rubin's neoliberal boy Larry explained the situation to Elizabeth Warren:

    "Larry [Summers] leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People - powerful people - listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: they don't criticize other insiders."

    Elizabeth Warren, A Fighting Chance

    Syaloch -> likbez...

    Yeah, case in point.

    [Dec 19, 2017] The Great Twitter Purge -- Corporate Cultural Marxists Overplay Hand by James Kirkpatrick

    Notable quotes:
    "... Since Twitter is an enabler (part of the muscle) of the Deep State, the purges are no surprise. ..."
    "... ... My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by Twitter & other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus, anti-elite views, whether left or right. Internet search engines now consistently suppress search results for such sites as the World Socialist Website. ..."
    "... What really terrifies the elites is the possibility of a revival of the actual Left (as distinct from the Fake Left). They're terrified that people might notice that the elites are waging a vicious class war against the non-elite classes. So anyone with genuine leftwing views can expect to be purged. ..."
    "... The elites aren't really worried by the alt-right, a tiny and politically entirely insignificant group. In fact they love the alt-right. The alt-right serves the Emmanuel Goldstein role admirably. Their real targets will be traitors on the Left. And that means anyone who is genuinely leftist. ..."
    "... An interesting aspect of the recent censorship is that you might think good capitalism requires serving every customer and hiring on merit, and that those who discriminate are only shooting themselves in the foot. I used to make this argument myself, but it's apparently faulty. The threat of angering powerful customers outweighs the benefit of tolerating weak and despised customers. ..."
    Dec 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Realist , December 19, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT

    Since Twitter is an enabler (part of the muscle) of the Deep State, the purges are no surprise.
    animalogic , December 19, 2017 at 9:12 am GMT
    ... My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by Twitter & other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus, anti-elite views, whether left or right. Internet search engines now consistently suppress search results for such sites as the World Socialist Website.

    You may wish to argue whether they are a bit more/bit less active against one side or the other. Fine, but don't forget: elites are less & less fearful of being caught censoring or suppressing freedom of expression. The attack on net neutrality is a major thrust in this campaign. This knife cuts BOTH ways: know your real enemy.

    anony-mouse , December 19, 2017 at 5:27 pm GMT
    But apparently not a single Unz.com columnist. There's two ways to look at it. Unz.com columnists are too powerful and well-known to be censored. Or nobody important knows who they are.
    dfordoom , Website December 19, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
    @animalogic

    My point is merely to note, that the current vulgar, naked, gutless censorship by Twitter & other MSM establishment DOGS is ultimately aimed at ALL anti-consensus, anti-elite views, whether left or right.

    What really terrifies the elites is the possibility of a revival of the actual Left (as distinct from the Fake Left). They're terrified that people might notice that the elites are waging a vicious class war against the non-elite classes. So anyone with genuine leftwing views can expect to be purged.

    The elites aren't really worried by the alt-right, a tiny and politically entirely insignificant group. In fact they love the alt-right. The alt-right serves the Emmanuel Goldstein role admirably. Their real targets will be traitors on the Left. And that means anyone who is genuinely leftist.

    jack daniels , December 19, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT
    An interesting aspect of the recent censorship is that you might think good capitalism requires serving every customer and hiring on merit, and that those who discriminate are only shooting themselves in the foot. I used to make this argument myself, but it's apparently faulty. The threat of angering powerful customers outweighs the benefit of tolerating weak and despised customers.

    Now that censorship has been established as a normal business option we can expect venues who do not censor to be targets of suspicion. So it may be that we are going to need the government to step in and require information channels not to discriminate, just as UPS doesn't care whether a package was sent by a racist or fascist, at least not in peacetime.

    [Dec 16, 2017] The Real Crimes of Russiagate by Patrick J. Buchanan

    In five month is is clear how wrong Pat Buchanan was. I expected from him a much better analysis with less prejudies. But he is absolutely right about leaks. Actually now it is clear that one of the requests from Trump team to Russian ambassador was about help Israel in UN, so this not a Russiagate. There is also suspection that Strzok was the person who had thrown Flynn under the bus and propagated Steele dossier within FBI. May be acting as Brennan agent inside FBI.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
    "... Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1 ..."
    "... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
    "... Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted. ..."
    "... Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out? ..."
    "... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
    "... Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck. ..."
    "... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
    "... Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing. ..."
    "... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps? ..."
    "... No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians. ..."
    "... There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics. ..."
    "... If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular. ..."
    "... If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country. ..."
    Jul 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

    For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was "no."

    As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."

    Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full Pinocchio for four days.

    And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they want it -- Russiagate.

    This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.

    Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.

    Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S. government designed to damage this president.

    Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn.

    An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled Israeli intelligence sources and methods.

    Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.

    Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek. First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.

    The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.

    Consider the original Russiagate offense.

    Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this "Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?

    The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.

    If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they publish the fruits of that crime?

    Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1?

    Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality.

    Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted.

    Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.

    And thus does democracy die in darkness.

    Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?

    Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?

    Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.

    People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.

    It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

    Copyright 2017 Creators.com. ← Russia Baiters and Putin Haters Category: Ideology Tags: American Media , Donald Trump , Russia

    NoseytheDuke , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 5:27 am GMT

    Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.
    Priss Factor , Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT
    There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.

    1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with it.

    2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on nothing.

    Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.

    vinteuil , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT
    Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps?
    The Alarmist , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

    It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

    No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians.

    Randal , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT
    Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo.

    There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics.

    Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?

    Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in hacking.

    Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

    Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded zealots.

    If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular.

    If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.

    That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about foreign influence.

    Gg Mo , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT
    @NoseytheDuke

    Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)

    Gg Mo , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT
    Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for Alzheimers ?

    He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc

    Andrei Martyanov , Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT

    It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

    It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse. At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.

    [Dec 15, 2017] The underlying problem of Trump vs. Hillary choice is the problem of the degradation of the US elite, a slide to gerontocracy which reminds me the deterioration of Soviet elite. At this point people do not respect their leaders. Much like was the case in the USSR after 1960

    Dec 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Internet-is-Beast -> Ms No , Dec 9, 2017 3:25 AM

    I acknowledge what you are saying. However, I have learned that when one is in the midst of a pessimistic scenario, one tends to develop tunnel vision and assume that the future will be like the present, only worse. Though I despise psychology as a science, this is a very psychological phenomenon. Granting what you say about Trump and the false optimism he generated, I voted for him not because I hated Trump less, but that I hated Hillary more.

    Nevertheless, notwithstanding, in spite of all this, I do have a certain optimism about the American people, as a rayon de lumičre in a gloomy prospect.

    Davidduke2000 -> Internet-is-Beast , Dec 9, 2017 3:05 AM

    keep the blinders on, even better yet wear the virtual reality goggles of MAGA while the country is living off a never ending fraud.

    Every part of the us government is a fraud, the money is a fraud, wall street is a fraud, 99% of the food you eat is kosher fraud and you pension is fraud as the money is not there to allow you to collect your pension yet most people are paying dearly for their pension and the money goes to either israel or the profiteers of the war machine.

    Clock Crasher -> Ms No , Dec 9, 2017 12:57 AM

    They are toast. The leaks are not going to stop. Once the baby boom generation dies off completely the next generations will clean up their mess. The baby boom can't see past their own prosperity. But everyone else is ready for reform.

    (trying to throw a little optimism into the mix)

    Think about it.. when you look at the electoral map by county HRC was thoroughly crushed. Is DJT a SomaSalesMan aka Mega Psyop.. who the fuck knows. The awakening is happen Chinese water torture style.

    This is a lot like being a Gold perma Bull. We want to come into the forums every day and write about how hopeless the situation is (a lot like what I do here everyday).

    Just remember this.. Even Mao's wife had to stand trial for crimes against the populace. In 20 years the babyboomers will be out of the way and we can get onto bigger and better things.

    Davidduke2000 -> Clock Crasher , Dec 9, 2017 2:58 AM

    the biggest problems come from the millennial who grew up with bullshit, baby boomers lived threw a lot of american bullshit and they are the ones like PCR are warning the youngs that america's days are numbered . even Deagel.com predict that the us population in 2025 will dwindle from 325 million to only 55 millions, where do you think the 275 million will go? nuclear war will take care of them.

    http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx

    the corruption is so great that every single new weapon does not work and all these weapons are built at a great cost. The bulk of the left activists are millennials , the same with the super left, yet on the right the millennials are busy filing their nails, surfing and buying bitcoin for a quick profit.

    I am Canadian, I am an outsider and see clearly as I am not part of the system, I see a country where the leaders convinced the population that they are exceptional but the people took it as a compliment, it was meant to fool them into a sense of being above the rest of the world, yet most americans do not know the capital of florida, california, mississippi, alabama yet they are in their own country.

    This exceptionalism is preventing them from understanding the danger they are in.

    For the first time I see a consensus on zerohedge that PCR is 100% right and the posters are worried what will become of america if israel is left with a huge hold on all us presidents and on the political infrastructure of the us and they agree with PCR on the list of propaganda the us have been telling the citizens to keep them distracted from knowing that their days are numbered when the Russians might attack thinking america wants to annihilate them.

    FredFlintstone -> Ms No , Dec 9, 2017 5:55 AM

    Damnit! I just wanted to retire quietly to a golf course.

    veritas semper ... , Dec 9, 2017 12:27 AM

    Pax Britannica<< Pax Americana<< Pax Judaica.

    We are in the late stages of Pax Judaica. They, through their money magic,usury,fiat printing,and the bought/paid for/bribed/blackmailed sycophants,rule almost the whole world.The West entirely.

    They have push so much,on all aspects of the society,that the recoil is going to be devastating.We started seeing this with the Jerusalem f*ck up.

    US can not be saved at this point. It is at the Event Horizon already. I don't know what will be left of it: a few 4th world small countries ,where warlords kill each other? Americans love violence.

    I absolutely sure IS...RA...EL is NOT going to survive. Neither Saudi Barbaria. Especially after this last blunder.

    Will they go into the dustbin of history gracefully,without destroying the whole world in the process?

    I don't think so,they are psychopaths.They do not like to lose or to be exposed for what they really are.

    PCR makes a valid point. The Russians are patient ,balanced, intelligent people,but if they sense they are dealing with irrational ones ,they will not take a chance. The Russians have already said that US is not agreement capable, a great insult in their view.

    Internet-is-Beast -> veritas semper vinces , Dec 9, 2017 2:46 AM

    Referencing your first line, there's also "army intelligence" "Long Island expressway" to cite a couple of other examples of the same wordplay.

    HRClinton -> veritas semper vinces , Dec 9, 2017 3:44 AM

    Pax Iudaea. Delenda est.

    Hostis humani generis. Delenda est.

    roddy6667 -> JibjeResearch , Dec 9, 2017 1:06 AM

    In America everybody has their labels (businessman, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican) so they can all fight with each other better. The country is so Balkanized that cannot function as a whole any more. I guess that was the plan all along.

    IDESofMARCH , Dec 9, 2017 1:07 AM

    Peace and truth are not welcome at the Whitehouse which should be painted BLOOD RED. Politicians are a greedy bloodthirsty criminals, That includes Trump. If you want to save the world from WW3 which we are watching incubate. ALL current crop of politicians have to be thrown out of government. YOU NEED A BLOODY REVOLUTION and throw these criminals into maximum security with the killers and molestors to do as they wish with them.

    Without public revolt we'll just keep seeing, hearing and swallowing fake news after fake news brain wash and send our children to kill the innocent in WAR after WAR.

    Walt , Dec 9, 2017 1:28 AM

    Private interests and agendas have control over the US government. As in (((Private interests and agendas))) have control over the US government.

    Seasmoke , Dec 9, 2017 1:34 AM

    Don't forget the biggest lie. Even bigger than 9/11. That in the mid 2000s millions of deadbeats all decided to buy houses that they could not afford. What a joke of a country. Land of the fee. Home of the Slave.

    Moe Howard , Dec 9, 2017 1:46 AM

    "What Mueller is doing is so corrupt that he really should be arrested and renditioned to Egypt." Best line of the whole piece. Love it. We are not, however, "Walking Into Armageddon" Rather, we are "Slouching into the Apocolypse"

    I am ENTERTAINED.

    Ivan de beers , Dec 9, 2017 2:05 AM

    Trump handing Jerusalem to israel is just the first step in setting up the rise of Israel and the fall of America. It is a symbolic transfer of power. All is left is world war 3 and the financial system collapse.

    GardenWeasel , Dec 9, 2017 2:57 AM

    PCR is way off this time. Flynn is acting as bait, and the swamp critters went for it. Trump and Bannon are playing the ol' rope-a-dope rather well. After the Dems and Deep Staters wear themselves out throwing all of these ineffective punches they will take them out.

    ProsperD9 -> GardenWeasel , Dec 9, 2017 3:56 AM

    You might be on to something...as the Dems and Deep State reveal themselves for what they really are, it makes it easier for Trump to go in for the kill....! They are getting more and more careless and their corruption and stupidity revealed more and more each day. I hope Trump be able to pave the way to cleaning up America and getting it back on its feet....we will see...!

    jafo2me , Dec 9, 2017 3:01 AM

    As many of you either know or have heard...

    "THE" controllers of the puppet politicans, bankers and world leaders "WANT YOU TO LIVE IN FEAR." All the reasons stated by PCR are valid but not one of them is a reason to go out and get drunk tomorrow. Either you believe in your own fate and the actions which control the fate which you harvest "OR YOU DON'T."

    Why would I worry about things I have zero control over, especially when I "KNOW" "THEY" live off of that fear? I will live every moment of my life in the joy and happiness which is this blessing to be alive "AND" will live in fear of no one. If you live your life this way they lose and you get to appreciate a gift which is greater then any material object on the planet.

    The worse which they can do when you decide to refuse to live in fear of "THEM" is to take your life which they have no power to do either.. Put up your middle finger to all of them, smile and move on and enjoy what time you have here to make it the best you can do.

    Choose not to live in fear of them..

    We all fear death and question our place in the universe. The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote for the emptiness of existence. ... Ernest Hemingway

    slicktroutman -> jafo2me , Dec 9, 2017 8:40 AM

    And then he killed himself.....l...

    Conscious Reviver , Dec 9, 2017 3:08 AM

    Two interesting pieces of news out of moonofalabama.org

    First b says the real buyer of the fake $450M fake DaVinci is MbS, the KSA crown prince. Second, MbS just fired his Zino-friendly, Jared-friendly foreign minister.

    jafo2me , Dec 9, 2017 3:23 AM

    As for Flynn...

    The rumors early on were that Flynn knew who all the pedophiles were in Washington, wanted to go after them "AND" would not back down. Trump's VP was included on that list and played a part in the decision to move him out of the public eye and into the position he currently occupies behind the scenes.

    Interestingly enough it was supposedly this stupid explanation of him not telling Pence about his meeting with the Russian Ambassador which was the excuse as to why he had to be removed. On face value, think about how ridiculous this is. A decorated General who answers to the President withheld information on a meeting which is fairly typical military procedure.

    "IT'S CALLED THE NEED TO KNOW." HELLO....

    Trump could have simply stated that Flynn was not under orders from Pence and was acting under a protocol common to members within the Military but not common to politicians. If Pence wanted to know anything about what people within my Administration are doing he is always welcome to discuss it with me. PERIOD...

    THE ENTIRE EXCUSE IS TOTAL BS AND THE WEAKNESS OF THAT EXCUSE GIVES ME SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGIONAL RUMORS WERE ACCURATE.

    JailBanksters , Dec 9, 2017 3:29 AM

    America Isn't "Walking Into Armageddon", America Is "Pushing for Armageddon"

    Conscious Reviver -> JailBanksters , Dec 9, 2017 4:46 AM

    The Fascist Tom Cotton with his hair on fire leading the charge. Metaphorically leading the charge to our own destruction. He would never get himself involved in any genuine battle charge. Russia is not my enemy or adversary.

    JailBanksters -> Conscious Reviver , Dec 9, 2017 5:11 AM

    Has Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea ever done any physical harm to the USA ? No ... How about the reverse ? Mmm, it appears the only ones that have attacked the USA are Saudi Arabia and Israel. But America does not attack them, instead it only attacks the countries that have never attacked the USA.

    Is that wierd or what ?, it's almost as if there is another agenda at play.

    slipreedip , Dec 9, 2017 4:57 AM

    US foreign Policy in a nutshell. Its war...one way or another.

    Stan Derdissue -> Tellthetruth , Dec 9, 2017 6:25 AM

    You mean the Islam that allows grandads to marry and abuse 10 year olds. Husbands to beat up their wives, hang gay teenage boys off cranes in public squares. Whip 12 year old girls in public for wearing western tight jeans ( underneath their hijab may I add). Satan would approve of this sadistic protocol.

    free corn , Dec 9, 2017 5:59 AM

    it's amazing to see so much naivety here. People seems to believe that America/Russia are bad/good. But people it's not just imperialism anymore it's globalism. Therefore it's not about interests of countries but rather the ones of oligarchs. And oligarchs interests are international, so why would they be interested in Armageddon? Earth belong to them, why would they want to damage their wealth so much? i think we'll see busyness as usual - small wars, removing obstacles for transnationals, concentration of wealth and power and social engineering on global scale.

    Conscious Reviver -> free corn , Dec 9, 2017 7:00 AM

    The NWO globalism program failed already. Now we are on to something else.

    slicktroutman -> Conscious Reviver , Dec 9, 2017 8:30 AM

    Can you explain how it failed already? Be specific.

    WTFUD -> free corn , Dec 9, 2017 7:23 AM

    Naive, ha ha! Take a look at Libya, the War Crimes & Genocide, overseen by the US & Vassals and talk about Good/Bad, NO SON, we're talking Class A EVIL here, and in the other Regime Change Neocon Playbook. How many Foreign Bases/Entanglements are Russia involved in, outside of Russia? In their Only ME base/port in Syria the US tried to fuck them over. Now Russia has half a dozen strategic Bases ( including a meeting of minds with Egypt, Qatar, Libya, Turkey, Sudan ) to eliminate DAESH/al-CIAd'uh (US Constructs).

    Lastly, Only through Threat and Intimidation can the US keep these Vassals on board. Have you not noticed how the Geopolitical Landmark is changing with Sovereigns flocking far and wide to Moscow, for an ALTERNATIVE to the Vassal Prisoner Status offered up by Vichy DC.

    Naive Son? Z/Hedgers will call out Russia if they deviate from the Path of Righteousness.

    No Russia didn't displace, maim, murder, tens of millions of citizens in the ME, VICHY DC did.

    Dark star , Dec 9, 2017 6:46 AM

    I read somewhere that the Ukrainian Army has changed its rule book to allow soldiers to wear beards. The inference from this is that those ISIS members rescued by the Americans are being shipped to Ukraine to fight with the Nazis against those in the East who object to Kiev's desire to genocide ethnic Russians. It would appear that, not content with arming Nazis and putting them in Ukraine's Government, the US is now putting an armed ISIS into Eastern Europe. Does anybody have more detail?

    WTFUD -> Dark star , Dec 9, 2017 6:59 AM

    Airlifting them from Der el Zor ( and inevitable destruction at the hands of Syrian/Hezbollah Bravehearts ) onto the demarcation line in the Donbass? Good luck with that Chestnut! What are the Jihadi's wearing, 3 SETS OF THERMALS? Let's put it this way, no matter how many Jihadi proxy scum/Advisers they airlift into Donbass there will be 10 times more FOREIGN FREEDOM-FIGHTERS (ok mainly Russian, but from Everywhere ) ready to join that gig, me included.

    Death to ZATO!

    WTFUD , Dec 9, 2017 6:47 AM

    How convenient that Trump gets to play the Good Guy, supposedly fingers tied at every turn by Deep State, preventing him from reaching out.

    There's not a shred of evidence that he's intervened to mend relations with Russia and if there is can someone shed light on this?

    First up he has a filthy Neocon POS in Nikki Haley in the UN, the Only one on the Security Council who's a War Hawk (including the Palestinian fiasco ).

    Did he intervene in the ILLEGAL eviction of Russian Diplomatic Quarters? Has he worked diligently with China & Russia to resolve DPRK or contributed to the Neocon war-drum beat with more bluster? Has he increased or defused tension in the ME by withdrawing US Troops or has he added to Obama's clandestine proxy jihadi recruitment programme by sending moar ADVISERS?

    They say Tillerson's on his way out, to be replaced by a Neocon war-hawk in Mike Pompeo who's current charge of al-CIAd'uh covert operations is a continuation of the Obama failings.

    Unlike Obama ( one of his few credits in 8 years ) Trump's Encouraging Netanyahu's Deviancy?

    I've read over at the Saker/Other that behind the scenes Vichy DC could step up the supply of WMD's/Advisers to Kiev.

    The US Coalition Forces in Syria (minus the US, lol), like their Iraqi counterparts (the Kurds in the main ) are at least talking with Russia/Government to thwart, long-term US Military Bases on Syrian soil. Obviously the US is unhappy about this with their Partition ambitions.

    FUCK VICHY DC & EVERYONE IN IT!

    Conscious Reviver -> WTFUD , Dec 9, 2017 7:05 AM

    When Vicky Nuland's relatives ran Russia. https://youtube.com/watch?v=pRfY8CwjXvY

    Able Ape , Dec 9, 2017 8:15 AM

    The US suffers from MIC Induced Psychosis - the only cure is stop funding the military!...

    "Rebellion to t... , Dec 9, 2017 8:33 AM

    Pope John Paul II, Gorbachev, and Reagan, together, ended the Cold War. HW Bush is the architect on how the USA kept its military industrial complex intact. The USA no longer had an existential threat, and no longer a reason to maintain a multiple tens of billions annual defense budget. So HW Bush picked an enemy and started a global war, that continues to this day. The British military map makers, redrew much of the middle east, after WWI.

    The state of Israel was already in the works, long before the story of the holocaust, some 20 years later. Anyway, Sadaam Hussein, leader of Iraq, and US ally, spoke to the Bush administration about Kuwait; and taking back for Iraq, what Sadaam believed the British map makers took away in 1917. Saddam was fooled, and the Bush administration had a reason to keep the military industrial complex intact. The globalism/new world order, that US and EU government officials speak of, is simply another way of saying that no one has any civil liberties and everyone is being monitored.

    This dangerous game was effective and working for quite a while. A great deal of wealth and power transferred to a select few. The strategy went sideways when Mr Putin said enough is enough, in roughly 2011.

    Now, freedom fighters have joined Mr Putin, such as Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Barrett Brown, Manning, Glenn Greenwald, Sarah Carter,and many other, to restore freedom and honor back to the people of the world by shining light on all of the corruption.

    It will take Trump and Sessions some time to restore trust and to root out the corruption.

    The bottom line is that there are good people out there, who will never let this criminal behavior and corruption to be hidden from the unwashed masses.

    Sudden Debt , Dec 9, 2017 9:01 AM

    America is just looking for an excuse to send their young kids to war to get shot to pieces and get mentally fucked up so the drug industry can profit, the war industry can profit, the banks can profit...

    in all...

    It's clear that it's the patriotic thing to do.

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
    "... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
    "... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
    "... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
    "... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
    "... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
    "... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
    "... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
    "... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
    "... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
    "... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
    "... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
    "... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
    "... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
    "... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
    "... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
    "... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
    "... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
    "... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
    "... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
    "... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
    "... Clinton lied under oath ..."
    "... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
    "... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
    "... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
    "... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
    "... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
    "... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
    "... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
    "... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
    "... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
    "... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
    "... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
    "... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
    Dec 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    polpont , 4 Dec 2017 08:32

    Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the media which make the US look like a banana republic.

    The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG, leaves one flabbergasted.

    And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour, tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just inconceivable.

    Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never been so low.

    ID1456161 -> Canadiman , 4 Dec 2017 08:30

    ...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.

    Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.

    Anna Bramwell -> etrang , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
    I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
    EduardStreltsovGhost -> JonShone , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
    What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.

    Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?

    pretzelattack -> Atticus_Finch , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
    What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel?
    oddballs -> Taf1980uk , 4 Dec 2017 08:26
    The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played.
    Krautolivier , 4 Dec 2017 08:21
    In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
    It's all too funny.
    zerohoursuni -> damientrollope , 4 Dec 2017 08:19
    True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.

    Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.

    Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us".

    cookcounty , 4 Dec 2017 08:15
    I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his first inauguration.

    But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should she start making sense now?

    It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing.

    themandibleclaw -> SteveMilesworthy , 4 Dec 2017 08:12
    Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.

    It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.

    WallyWillage , 4 Dec 2017 08:05
    Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking office.

    The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...

    EduardStreltsovGhost -> CitizenOfTinyBlue , 4 Dec 2017 08:03

    You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression

    if that were the case, Clinton, Bush and Obama would be sitting in jail right now.
    oddballs -> Taf1980uk , 4 Dec 2017 07:58
    Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community.

    Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.

    Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.

    Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America. Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.

    The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria based on conjecture and not proof.

    EduardStreltsovGhost , 4 Dec 2017 07:52
    Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders.
    RelaxAndChill -> Silgen , 4 Dec 2017 07:46
    Crimea was and is Russian. Your mask is slipping, Vlad .

    Your ignorance is showing. I have no connection to Russia what so ever. Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the Great. Russia has never relinquished control. What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is irrelevant. And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.

    StillAbstractImp , 4 Dec 2017 07:40
    Decelerating Fascism - Is Kushner a Putin operative, too?
    mikedow -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 07:35
    Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well. If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
    themandibleclaw -> Toastface_Killah , 4 Dec 2017 07:34

    You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.

    I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill from a law professor at Washington University.

    the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official .

    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/362813-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-flynn-indictment

    backstop -> EdwardFatherby , 4 Dec 2017 07:31
    "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems"

    It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome?

    BustedBoom , 4 Dec 2017 07:31

    He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council.

    So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
    CitizenOfTinyBlue , 4 Dec 2017 07:26
    You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on

    Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.

    Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia, if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools playing this stupid games.

    ConCaruthers , 4 Dec 2017 07:25
    If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
    moonsphere -> Hydro , 4 Dec 2017 07:24
    Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence.
    etrang -> CraftyRabbi , 4 Dec 2017 07:14

    Mueller could charge/indict Kushner or Trump Jr under New York state criminal statutes

    But not for crimes relating to federal elections or conspiring with Russia.

    John Edwin -> OlivesNightie , 4 Dec 2017 07:13
    Clinton lied under oath
    John Edwin -> SoAmerican , 4 Dec 2017 07:11
    The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
    emiliofloris -> Sowester , 4 Dec 2017 07:08

    I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters. They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact.

    So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.

    Billsykesdoggy -> reinhardpolley , 4 Dec 2017 06:55
    <blockquoteSpecifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.>

    So Trump authorized Obama's talks with Macron last week?

    Don't think so.

    braciole -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 06:55

    Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the US.

    And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.

    BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed" supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to extend the number of terms he can serve.

    emiliofloris -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 06:53

    Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the US.

    Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive?

    The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?

    technotherapy , 4 Dec 2017 06:46
    The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council.

    And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.

    themandibleclaw -> Simon Denham , 4 Dec 2017 06:44

    Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.

    In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.

    moonsphere -> SoAmerican , 4 Dec 2017 06:44
    These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic. Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
    reinhardpolley -> Simon Denham , 4 Dec 2017 06:33
    The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
    themandibleclaw , 4 Dec 2017 06:22
    All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election.

    So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.

    damientrollope , 4 Dec 2017 06:15
    Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.

    But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an IQ to match.

    Boojay , 4 Dec 2017 06:15
    Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films, bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
    Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works.
    formerathlete -> vacantspace , 4 Dec 2017 06:15

    when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had.... decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to walk the streets?

    Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of the three things that you mentioned???

    If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.

    Hugh Mad -> JonShone , 4 Dec 2017 06:10

    The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.

    That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad, while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.

    JonShone -> Hugh Mad , 4 Dec 2017 06:06
    You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.

    Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat.

    It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.

    The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.

    RelaxAndChill , 4 Dec 2017 05:59
    All the signs in the Russia probe point to ..

    How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt. So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia. Crimea was and is Russian. Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him. He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other global problems.

    variation31 -> Sowester , 4 Dec 2017 05:50

    They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact

    Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.

    These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of evil.

    [Dec 12, 2017] The Acceleration of Censorship in America by Joe Lauria

    Notable quotes:
    "... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
    "... A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests. ..."
    "... Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners. ..."
    "... Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing. ..."
    "... Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia. ..."
    "... The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party. ..."
    "... According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy. ..."
    "... The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect. ..."
    "... There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin. ..."
    "... But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines. ..."
    "... the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media. ..."
    "... Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik . ..."
    "... At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak. ..."
    "... Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails ..."
    "... As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce." ..."
    "... There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign. ..."
    "... As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate. ..."
    "... RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server. ..."
    "... Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself. ..."
    "... Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media. ..."
    "... Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that. ..."
    "... It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers. ..."
    "... And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state? ..."
    "... Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true". ..."
    Dec 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe. I know because I was a victim of it.

    At the end of October, I wrote an article for Consortium News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

    The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.

    And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.

    My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.

    After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the article on the HuffPost, which was rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006, I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost editors retracted the article without any explanation.

    .... ... ...

    Support from Independent Media

    Like the word "fascism," "censorship" is an over-used and mis-used accusation, and I usually avoid using it. But without any explanation, I could only conclude that the decision to retract was political, not editorial.

    I am non-partisan as I oppose both major parties for failing to represent millions of Americans' interests. I follow facts where they lead. In this case, the facts led to an understanding that the Jan. 6 FBI/NSA/CIA intelligence "assessment" on alleged Russian election interference, prepared by what then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts, was based substantially on unvetted opposition research and speculation, not serious intelligence work.

    The assessment even made the point that the analysts were not asserting that the alleged Russian interference was a fact. The report contained this disclaimer: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

    Under deadline pressure on Jan. 6, Scott Shane of The New York Times instinctively wrote what many readers of the report must have been thinking: "What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"

    Yet, after the Jan. 6 report was published, leading Democrats asserted falsely that the "assessment" represented the consensus judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies – not just the views of "hand-picked" analysts from three – and much of the U.S. mainstream media began treating the allegations of Russian "hacking" as fact, not as an uncertain conclusion denied by both the Russian government and WikiLeaks, which insists that it did not get the two batches of Democratic emails from the Russian government.

    Yet, because of the oft-repeated "17 intelligence agencies" canard and the mainstream media's over-hyped reporting, the public impression has built up that the accusations against Russia are indisputable. If you ask a Russia-gate believer today what their faith is based on, they will invariably point to the Jan. 6 assessment and mock anyone who still expresses any doubt.

    For instance, an unnamed former CIA officer told The Intercept last month, "You've got all these intelligence agencies saying the Russians did the hack. To deny that is like coming out with the theory that the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor."

    That the supposedly dissident Intercept would use this quote is instructive about how unbalanced the media's reporting on Russia-gate has been. We have film of Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor and American ships burning – and we have eyewitness accounts of thousands of U.S. soldiers and sailors. Yet, on Russia-gate, we have only the opinions of "hand-picked" intelligence officials who themselves admit their opinions aren't fact. No serious editor would allow a self-interested and unnamed source to equate Russia-gate and Pearl Harbor in print.

    In this atmosphere, it was easy for HuffPost editors to hear complaints from readers and blithely ban my story. But before it was pulled, 125 people had shared it. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, then took up my cause, being the first to write about the HuffPost censorship on his blog. McGovern included a link to a .pdf file that I captured of the censored HuffPost story. It has since been republished on numerous other websites.

    Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted about it. British filmmaker and writer Tariq Ali posted it on his Facebook page. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams interviewed me at length about the censorship on their TV program. ZeroHedge wrote a widely shared piece and someone actually took the time, 27 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact, to read the entire article on YouTube. I began a petition to HuffPost 's Polgreen to either explain the retraction or restore the article. It has gained more than 2,000 signatures so far. If a serious fact-check analysis was made of my article, it must exist and can and should be produced.

    Watchdogs & Media Defending Censorship

    Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.

    In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it. I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.

    One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that "Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for "any reason," including, apparently, censorship.

    Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.

    BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.

    That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference, he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious accusations, he angrily cut off debate.

    When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled. True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.

    This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith challenged.

    Why Critical News is Suppressed

    But the HuffPos t's action is hardly isolated. It is part of a rapidly growing landscape of censorship of news critical of American corporate and political leaders who are trying to defend themselves from an increasingly angry population. It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad.

    A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests.

    America's bipartisan rulers are threatened by popular discontent from both left and right. They were alarmed by the Bernie Sanders insurgency and by Donald Trump's victory, even if Trump is now betraying the discontented masses who voted for him by advancing tax and health insurance plans designed to further crush them and benefit the rich.

    Trump's false campaign promises will only make the rulers' problem of controlling a restless population more difficult. Americans are subjected to economic inequality greater than in the first Gilded Age. They are also subjected today to more war than in the first Gilded Age, which led to the launch of American overseas empire. Today American rulers are engaged in multiple conflicts following decades of post-World War II invasions and coups to expand their global interests.

    People with wealth and power always seem to be nervous about losing both. So plutocrats use the concentrated media they own to suppress news critical of their wars and domestic repression. For example, almost nothing was reported about militarized police forces until the story broke out into the open in the Ferguson protests and now the story has been buried again.

    Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners.

    To operate in this media structure, most journalists know to excise out the historical context of America's wars of domination. They know to uncritically accept American officials' bromides about spreading democracy, while hiding the real war aims.

    Examples abound: America's role in the Ukraine coup was denied or downplayed; a British parliamentary report exposing American lies that led to the destruction of Libya was suppressed ; and most infamously, the media promoted the WMD hoax and the fable of "bringing democracy" to Iraq, leading to the illegal invasion and devastation of that country. A recent example from November is a 60 Minutes report on the Saudi destruction of Yemen, conspicuously failing to mention America's crucial role in the carnage.

    I've pitched numerous news stories critical of U.S. foreign policy to a major American newspaper that were rejected or changed in the editorial process. One example is the declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document of August 2012 that accurately predicted the rise of the Islamic State two years later.

    The document, which I confirmed with a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. and its Turkish, European and Gulf Arab allies, were supporting the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria to put pressure on the Syrian government, but the document warned that this Salafist base could turn into an "Islamic State."

    But such a story would undermine the U.S. government's "war on terrorism" narrative by revealing that the U.S.-backed strategy actually was risking the expansion of jihadist-held territory in Syria. The story was twice rejected by my editors and to my knowledge has never appeared in corporate media.

    Another story rejected in June 2012, just a year into the Syrian war, was about Russia's motives in Syria being guided by a desire to defeat the growing jihadist threat there. Corporate media wanted to keep the myth of Russia's "imperial" aims in Syria alive. I had to publish the article outside the U.S., in a South African daily newspaper.

    In September 2015 at the U.N. General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed my story about Russia's motives in Syria to stop jihadists from taking over. Putin invited the U.S. to join this effort as Moscow was about to launch its military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration, still insisting on "regime change" in Syria, refused. And the U.S. corporate media continued promoting the myth that Russia intervened to recapture its "imperial glory."

    It was much easier to promote the "imperial" narrative than report Putin's clear explanation to French TV channel TF1, which was not picked up by American media.

    "Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western partners' forces?" Putin said. "These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d'Azur, for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same from happening in Syria."

    But don't take Putin's word for it. Then Secretary of State John Kerry knew why Russia intervened. In a leaked audio conversation with Syrian opposition figures in September 2016, Kerry said: "The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the pos­sibility of going to Damascus, and that's why Russia came in because they didn't want a Daesh government and they supported Assad."

    Kerry admitted that rather than seriously fight the Islamic State in Syria, the U.S. was ready to use its growing strength to pressure Assad to resign, just as the DIA document that I was unable to report said it would. "We know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, how­ever, we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." Kerry's com­ment suggests that the U.S. was willing to risk the Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to force out Assad.

    Why Russia Is Targeted

    Where are independent-minded Western journalists to turn if their stories critical of the U.S. government and corporations are suppressed? The imperative is to get these stories out – and Russian media has provided an opening. But this has presented a new problem for the plutocracy. The suppression of critical news in their corporate-owned media is no longer working if it's seeping out in Russian media and through dissident Western news sites.

    Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing.

    As a Russian-government-financed English-language news channel, RT also gives a Russian perspective on the news, the way CNN and The New York Times give an American perspective and the BBC a British one. American mainstream journalists, from my experience, arrogantly deny suppressing news and believe they present a universal perspective, rather than a narrow American view of the world.

    The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view. It's impossible to do so without those voices included. Routinely or systematically shutting them out also dehumanizes people in those countries, making it easier to gain popular support to go to war against them.

    Russia is scapegoated by charging that RT or Sputnik are sowing divisions in the U.S. by focusing on issues like homelessness, racism, or out-of-control militarized police forces, as if these divisive issues didn't already exist. The U.S. mainstream media also seems to forget that the U.S. government has engaged in at least 70 years of interference in other countries' elections, foreign invasions, coups, planting stories in foreign media and cyber-warfare, which Russian media crucially points out.

    Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia.

    The overriding point about the "Russian propaganda" complaint is that when America's democratic institutions, including the press and the electoral process, are crumbling under the weight of corruption that the American elites have created or maintained, someone else needs to be blamed.

    The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party.

    According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy.

    The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect.

    There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin.

    Moscow sees an aggressive America expanding NATO and putting 30,000 NATO troops on its borders; trying to overthrow a secular ally in Syria with terrorists who threaten Russia itself; backing a coup in Ukraine as a possible prelude to moves against Russia; and using American NGOs to foment unrest inside Russia before they were forced to register as foreign agents.

    Accelerated Censorship in the Private Sector

    The Constitution prohibits government from prior-restraint, or censorship, though such tactics were imposed, largely unchallenged, during the two world wars. American newspapers voluntarily agreed to censor themselves in the Second World War before the government dictated it.

    In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said he didn't "desire to reestablish wartime censorship" and instead asked the press for self-censorship. He largely got it until the papers began reporting American battlefield losses. On July 25, 1950, "the army ordered that reporters were not allowed to publish 'unwarranted' criticism of command decisions, and that the army would be 'the sole judge and jury' on what 'unwarranted' criticism entailed," according to a Yale University study on military censorship.

    After excellent on-the-ground reporting from Vietnam brought the war home to America, the military reacted by instituting, initially in the first Gulf War, serious control of the press by "embedding" reporters from private media companies. They accepted the arrangement, much as World War II newspapers censored themselves.

    It is important to realize that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, including the media. It is not illegal for them to practice censorship. I never made a First Amendment argument against the HuffPost , for instance. However, under pressure from Washington, even in peacetime, media companies can do the government's dirty work to censor or limit free speech for the government.

    In the past few weeks, we've seen an acceleration of attempts by corporations to inhibit Russian media in the U.S. Both Google and Facebook, which dominate the Web with more than 50 percent of ad revenue, were at first resistant to government pressure to censor "Russian propaganda." But they are coming around.

    Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company, said on Nov. 18 that Google would "derank" articles from RT and Sputnik in the Google searches, making the stories harder for readers to find. The billionaire Schmidt claimed Russian information can be "repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have been weaponized," he said. That is how factual news critical of U.S. corporate and political leadership is seen by them: as a weapon threatening their rule.

    "My own view is that these patterns can be detected, and that they can be taken down or deprioritized," Schmidt said. Though Google would essentially be hiding news produced by RT and Sputnik , Schmidt is sensitive to the charge of censorship, even though there's nothing legally to stop him. "We don't want to ban the sites. That's not how we operate," Schmidt said cynically. "I am strongly not in favor of censorship. I am very strongly in favor of ranking. It's what we do."

    But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines.

    Responding to a deadline from Congress to act, Facebook on Nov. 22 announced that it would inform users if they have been "targeted" by Russian "propaganda." Facebook's help center will tell users if they liked or shared ads allegedly from the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which supposedly bought $100,000 in ads over a two-year period, with more than half these ads coming after the 2016 U.S. election and many not related to politics.

    The $100,000 sum over two years compares to Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue. Plus, Facebook only says it "believes" or it's "likely" that the ads came from that firm, whose links to the Kremlin also have yet to be proved.

    Facebook described the move as "part of our ongoing effort to protect our platforms and the people who use them from bad actors who try to undermine our democracy." Congress wants more from Facebook, so it will not be surprising if users will eventually be alerted to Russian media reports as "propaganda" in the future.

    While the government can't openly shut down a news site, the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming vote on whether to deregulate the Internet by ending net neutrality will free private Internet companies in the U.S. to further marginalize Russian and dissident websites by slowing them down and thus discouraging readers from viewing them.

    Likewise, as the U.S. government doesn't want to be openly seen shutting down RT operations, it is working around the edges to accomplish that.

    After the Department of Justice forced, under threat of arrest, RT to register its employees as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , State Department spokeswoman Heather Nuaert said that "FARA does not police the content of information disseminated, does not limit the publication of information or advocacy materials, and does not restrict an organization's ability to operate." She'd earlier said that registering would not "impact or affect the ability of them to report news and information. We just have them register. It's as simple as that."

    The day after Nuaert spoke the Congressional press office stripped RT correspondents of their Capitol Hill press passes, citing the FARA registration. "The rules of the Galleries state clearly that news credentials may not be issued to any applicant employed 'by any foreign government or representative thereof.' Upon its registration as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), RT Network became ineligible to hold news credentials," read the letter to RT.

    But Russia-gate faithful ignore these aggressive moves and issue calls for even harsher action. After forcing RT to register, Keir Giles, a Chatham House senior consulting fellow, acted as though it never happened. He said in a Council on Foreign Relations Cyber Brief on Nov. 27: "Although the Trump administration seems unlikely to pursue action against Russian information operations, there are steps the U.S. Congress and other governments should consider."

    I commented on this development on RT America. It would also have been good to have the State Department's Nuaert answer for this discrepancy about the claim that forced FARA registrations would not affect news gathering when it already has. My criticism of RT is that they should be interviewing U.S. decision-makers to hold them accountable, rather than mostly guests outside the power structure. The decision-makers could be called out on air if they refuse to appear.

    Growing McCarthyite Attacks

    Western rulers' wariness about popular unrest can be seen in the extraordinary and scurrilous attack on the Canadian website globalresearch.ca . It began with a chilling study by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into the relatively obscure website, followed by a vicious hit piece on Nov. 18 by the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest newspaper. The headline was: "How a Canadian website is being used to amplify the Kremlin's view of the world."

    "What once appeared to be a relatively harmless online refuge for conspiracy theorists is now seen by NATO's information warfare specialists as a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media – as well as the North American and European public's trust in government and public institutions," the Globe and Mail reported.

    "Global Research is viewed by NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence – or StratCom – as playing a key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed by the Kremlin, in particular, and the Assad regime." The website never knew it had such powers. I've not agreed with everything I've read on the site. But it is a useful clearinghouse for alternative media. Numerous Consortium News articles are republished there, including a handful of mine. But the site's typical sharing and reposting on the Internet is seen by NATO as a plot to undermine the Free World.

    "It uses that reach to push not only its own opinion pieces, but 'news' reports from little-known websites that regularly carry dubious or false information," the he Globe and Mail reported. " At times, the site's regular variety of international-affairs stories is replaced with a flurry of items that bolster dubious reportage with a series of opinion pieces, promoted on social media and retweeted and shared by active bots."

    The newspaper continued, "'That way, they increase the Google ranking of the story and create the illusion of multi-source verification,' said Donara Barojan, who does digital forensic research for [StratCom]. But she said she did not yet have proof that Global Research is connected to any government."

    This sort of smear is nothing more than a blatant attack on free speech by the most powerful military alliance in the world, based on the unfounded conviction that Russia is a fundamental force for evil and that anyone who has contacts with Russia or shares even a part of its multilateral world view is suspect.

    Such tactics are spreading to Europe. La Repubblica newspaper in Italy wrote a similar hit piece against L'Antidiplomatico, a dissident website. And the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media.

    High-profile individuals in the U.S. are also now in the crosshairs of the neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. On Nov. 25 The Washington Post ran a nasty hit piece on Washington Capitals' hockey player Alex Ovechkin, one of the most revered sports figures in the Washington area, simply because he, like 86 percent of other Russians , supports his president.

    "Alex Ovechkin is one of Putin's biggest fans. The question is, why?" ran the headline. The story insidiously implied that Ovechkin was a dupe of his own president, being used to set up a media campaign to support Putin, who is under fierce and relentless attack in the United States where Ovechkin plays professional ice hockey.

    "He has given an unwavering endorsement to a man who U.S. intelligence agencies say sanctioned Russian meddling in last year's presidential election," write the Post reporters, once again showing their gullibility to U.S. intelligence agencies that have provided no proof for their assertions (and even admit that they are not asserting their opinion as fact).

    Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik .

    At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak.

    But as a consequence the club director said its funding was slashed from the Swiss government.

    Russia-gate's Hurdles

    Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails.

    There will likely be more indictments from Mueller, even perhaps a complaint about Trump committing obstruction of justice because he said on TV that he fired Comey, in part, because of the "Russia thing." But Trump's clumsy reaction to the "scandal," which he calls "fake news" and a "witch hunt," still is not proof that Putin and the Russians interfered in the U.S. election to achieve the unlikely outcome of Trump's victory.

    The Russia-gate faithful assured us to wait for the indictment of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But again there was nothing about pre-election "collusion," only charges that Flynn had lied to the FBI about conversations with the Russian ambassador regarding policy matters during the presidential transition, i.e., after the election.

    One of Flynn's conversations was about trying unsuccessfully to comply with an Israeli request to get Russia to block a United Nations resolution censuring Israel's settlements on Palestinian land.

    As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce."

    The media is becoming a victim of its own mania. In its zeal to push this story reporters are making a huge number of amateurish mistakes on stories that are later corrected. Brian Ross of ABC News was suspended for erroneously reporting that Trump had told Flynn to contact the Russians before the election, and not after.

    There remain a number of key hurdles to prove the Russia-gate story. First, convincing evidence is needed that the Russian government indeed did "hack" the Democratic emails, both those of the DNC and Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – and gave them to WikiLeaks. Then it must be linked somehow to the Trump campaign. If it were a Russian hack it would have been an intelligence operation on a need-to-know basis, and no one in the Trump team needed to know. It's not clear how any campaign member could have even helped with an overseas hack or could have been an intermediary to WikiLeaks.

    There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign.

    Clinton principally pinned her loss on FBI Director James Comey for closing and then reopening the investigation into her improper use of a private email server while Secretary of State. She also spread the blame to Russia (repeating the canard about "seventeen [U.S. intelligence] agencies, all in agreement"), Bernie Sanders, the inept DNC and other factors.

    As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate.

    That RT and Sputnik ran pieces critical of Hillary Clinton was their right, and they were hardly alone. RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server.

    Another vague Russia-gate suspicion stemming largely from Steele's opposition research is that somehow Russia bribed or blackmailed Trump because of past business with Russians. But there are evidentiary and logical problems with these theories, since some lucrative deals fell through (and presumably wouldn't have if Trump was being paid off).

    Some have questioned how Trump could have supported detente with Russia without being beholden to Moscow in some way. But Jeffrey Sommers, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, wrote a convincing essay explaining adviser Steve Bannon's influence on Trump's thinking about Russia and the need for cooperation between the two powers to solve international problems.

    Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself.

    An earlier version of this story appeared on Consortium News .

    Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at @unjoe .

    Carlton Meyer , Website December 11, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT

    "Breaking News" – CNN's Fake News Exposed -- Again!

    https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

    AndrewR , December 11, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT
    People believe what they want to. Evidence, or lack thereof, has little to do with it, so censorship, or lack thereof, is largely pointless.
    El Dato , December 11, 2017 at 6:53 am GMT

    But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April, she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.

    Ah, so HuffPo is now a NYT vehicle.

    jilles dykstra , December 11, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
    " It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad. "

    This is exactly what Howard Zinn writes. Alas it is the same at this side of the Atlantic. The British newspaper Guardian was independent, Soros bought it. Dutch official 'news' is just government propaganda.

    But also most Dutch dicussion sites are severely biased, criticism of Israel is next to impossible. And of course the words 'populist' and 'extreme right' are propaganda words, used for those who oppose mainstream politics: EU, euro, globalisation, unlimited immigration, etc.

    Despite all these measures and censorship, including self censorship, dissident political parties grow stronger and stronger. One could see this in the French presidential elections, one sees it in Germany where AfD now is in parliament, the Reichstag, one sees it in Austria, where the nationalist party got about half the votes, one sees it in countries as Poland and Hungary, that want to keep their cultures. And of course there is Brexit 'we want our country back'.

    In the Netherlands the in October 2016 founded party FvD, Forum for Democracy, got two seats in the last elections, but polls show that if now elections were held, it would have some fourteen seats in our parliament of 150. The present ruling coalition, led by Rutte, has very narrow margins, both in parliament and what here is called Eerste Kamer.
    Parliament maybe can be seen as House, Eerste Kamer as Senate. There is a good chance that at the next Eerste Kamer elections FvD will be able to end the reign of Rutte, who is, in my opinion, just Chairman of the Advance Rutte Foundation, and of course a stiff supporter of Merkel and Brussels. Now that the end of Merkel is at the horizon, I'm curious how Rutte will manoevre.

    Grandpa Charlie , December 11, 2017 at 7:42 am GMT

    "The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view" -- Joe Lauria

    Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media.

    It"s true, of course, that the viewpoints of North Koreans go unreported in MSM, but that's hardly the "whole truth and nothing but the truth." The problems confronting any journalist who might endeavor to report on public opinion in North Korea are incomparably more difficult than the problems confronting attempts to report on public opinion in Iran, in Russia or in Palestine. These three "theaters" -- so to speak –each with its own challenges, no doubt, should never be conflated with the severe realities of censorship and even forceful thought policing in North Korea.

    Anonymous , Disclaimer December 11, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT

    Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.

    I'm not even sure that they believe in Russia-gate. This could easily be cowardice or corruption. The globalists have poured untold millions into "fixing" the Internet wrongthink so it's only natural that we're seeing results. I'm seeing "grassroots" shilling everywhere, for instance.

    This is not going to work for them. You can't force consent of the governed. The more you squeeze, the more sand slips through your fingers.

    Vlad , December 11, 2017 at 10:12 am GMT
    Thank you for your steadfastness, honesty, courage and determination.
    cowardly troll , December 11, 2017 at 11:31 am GMT
    It is worse than censorship. History, via web searches, are being deleted. Now, you have no hint what is missing. Example, in 1999 I read an article in a weekly tech newspaper – maybe Information Week – about university researchers who discovered that 64 bit encrypted phones were only using the first 56 bits and the last 8 were zeros. They suspected that the US government was responsible. Cannot find any reference to that online.
    Jim Bob Lassiter , December 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
    Joe Lauria may very well be a "victim", but certainly not one that I would parade around as some USDA table grade poster child victim of really egregious reprisals. He's a veteran in the establishment MSM milieu and certainly knew what kind of a shit bird operation it is that he chose to attempt to publish his piece in.

    Oh, lest I forget to mention, he didn't lose his livelihood, get ejected from his gym, have his country club membership revoked, get banned from AirB&B ad nauseum.

    Che Guava , December 11, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT
    It is an interesting article. I am curious about the '17 intellience agencies' thing, CIA, FBI, NSA, army and navy intel units, well that is making five or so. The latter two would likely having no connection with checking the 'Russia was hacking the election', likewise, air force sigint (which they obviously need and have). So, a list from a poster who is expert on the topic, what are the seventeen agencies which were agreeing on vicious Vlad having 'hacked' poor Hillary's campaign?

    Is anybody knowing? This is a very real, good, and serious question, from me, and have not seeing it before. Can anybody producing a list of the seventeen agencies? Parodic replies welcome, but it would be of interest to many if somebody could making a list of the seventeen lurching about in Hillary's addled mind.

    jack ryan , Website December 11, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
    We're witnessing a huge closing of the American Liberal secular mind. There used to be secular liberal hard copy magazines like the Atlantic Magazine that published intelligent well written articles and commentary about foreign affairs, immigration, Islam from a principled secular, Liberal perspective – especially in the early 1990s. That's pretty much gone now as The Atlantic is mostly just a blog that puts out the party line. There are still, thankfully a few exceptions like

    Graeme Wood's "What ISIS Really Wants" https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    The Atlantic Magazine still allows a lot of free speech in the comment section, except in cases like articles written by the Ta-Nehisi Coates.

    We try to use humor to deflate the humorless PC Lib Left thought police and the go alongs to get along in the Cuckservative, Conservative Inc.

    Here's one of our/Farstar cartoons just noticing that too many people are just parroting CNN nonsense about Russian conspiracies.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2017/06/16/farstar-returns-parroting-the-tv-the-russians-are-behind-everything/jpg-parrot/

    Ilyana_Rozumova , December 11, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
    Bias MSM. Censorship. These are affirmative sins of insecurity eventually leading to desperation, resulting in dictatorship.
    Joe Hide , December 11, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT
    Your article seemed otherwise good, but lacked any humor early on to keep me reading. After all, it is 6000 words! I have a job, family, obligations, other readings, and only so much thinking energy in a day. I think You might try shortening such articles to maybe 2000 – 3000 words? Like I said though, You did present some good ideas.
    Julius n' Ethel , December 11, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT
    Mark James' modified limited hangout shows us the true purpose of his ICCPR-illegal statist war propaganda. James candidly jettisons Hillary, acknowledging the obvious, that she was the more repulsive choice in this duel of the titans. But James is still hanging on to the crucial residual message of the CIA line: Putin tripleplus bad.

    Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that.

    James fantasizes that Putin is going to get ousted and murdered. However Putin has public approval that US politicians couldn't dream of. This is because Russia's government meets world human rights standards that the US fails to meet. The Russian government complies with the Paris Principles, world standard for institutionalized human rights protection under expert international review. The USA does not. The USA is simply not is Russia's league with respect to universally-acknowledged rights.

    James can easily verify this by comparing the US human-rights deficiencies to corresponding Russian reviews, point-by-point, based on each article of the core human rights conventions.

    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

    Comprehensive international human rights review shows that the USA is not in Russia's league. Look at the maps if you can't be bothered to read the particulars – they put the US in an underdeveloped backwater with headchopping Arab princelings and a couple African presidents-for-life. CIA's INGSOC fixation on Putin is intended to divert your attention from the objectively superior human-rights performance of the Russian government as a whole, and the USA's failure and disgrace in public in Geneva, front of the whole world.

    How did this happen? Turns out, dismantling the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now we see it's time to take the USA apart and do the same for America. That's the origin of the panic you can smell on the CIA regime.

    Don Bacon , December 11, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT
    There is censorship on blogs.
    > I have been banned from The Atlantic blog for correcting a noted anti-Iran blogger.
    > I have been banned from the National Interest blog for highlighting Pentagon's acquisition problems.
    > I have been banned by Facebook for declaring that females don't belong in the infantry. I "violated community standards" with my opinion which was based somewhat on my time in the infantry, which my PC critic probably lacked.
    jilles dykstra , December 11, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT
    @Don Bacon

    In hindsight I wish I would have made a list of sites where I was banned, some of them several times. In the USA Washpost and Christian Science Monitor, both sites were abolished, I suppose because censorship and banning became too expensive.

    In UK War Without End was was one of the very few sites where was no censorship, UK laws forced the owner to close down. The site was near impossible to hack, the owner had a hand built interface in Linux between incoming messages and the site itself. At present there is not one more or less serious Dutch site where I can write.

    On top of that, most Dutch sites no longer exist, especially those operated by newspapers.

    It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers.

    Alden , December 11, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT
    @Jim Bob Lassiter

    Your post is exactly what I wanted to write. Saved me the effort. I figured out the MSM was nothing but lies around 1966. I have no sympathy for any MSM journalist.

    Greg Bacon , Website December 11, 2017 at 6:12 pm GMT
    Wouldn't it be scary if a nation's central bank was controlled and run by a group pretending to be loyal to their host nation, but was actually in league with a nation that was trying to gobble up huge chunks of ME land, doing this by controlling the host nation's media outlets, and forever posting psyop stories and actual lies to support the land thefts?

    And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state?

    Yes, it would be scary to live in a tyrant state like that.

    Anon , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT

    Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true".

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    Highly recommended!
    Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better protection.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
    "... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
    "... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
    "... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
    "... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
    "... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
    "... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
    "... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
    "... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
    "... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
    "... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
    "... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
    "... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
    "... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
    "... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
    "... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
    "... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
    "... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
    "... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
    "... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
    "... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
    "... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
    "... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
    "... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
    "... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
    "... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
    "... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
    "... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
    "... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
    "... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
    "... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
    Jul 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.

    Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.

    The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War.

    According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.

    Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.

    However, the project took an unexpected turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.

    So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.

    Blocked Premiere

    Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.

    Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."

    As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The Washington Post reported.

    That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.

    By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son.

    But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.

    There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past.

    Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."

    In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven forbid!

    One-Time Showing

    So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.

    Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.

    After the Newseum presentation, a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky Act."

    The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic. But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.

    The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.

    "We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."

    The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you might read in a totalitarian society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for saying something that almost no one heard.

    New Paradigm

    The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives on sensitive geopolitical issues.

    Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."

    First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.

    In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.

    From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

    But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the White House.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    Joseph A. Haran, Jr. , July 13, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.

    Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this problem before.

    ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

    Any link?? I am willing to buy it.

    Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet, search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"

    https://my.mail.ru/bk/n-osetrova/video/71/18682.html?time=155&from=videoplayer

    I'll keep looking for the film with translation into some other language.

    Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    Sorry, the Russian text did not appear. Try with latin alphabet: Film Andreia Nekrasova "Zakon Magnitskogo. Za kulisami"

    Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d1ylakLMNU

    This is the same dubbed version, on youtube.

    Abe , July 13, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis.

    backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.

    incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm

    Well stated.

    Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    Mr. Parry,

    Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.

    Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?

    I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant.

    Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it.

    Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.

    Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life as we know it, is appalling.

    Anna , July 13, 2017 at 5:54 pm

    "After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
    Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.

    Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Anna,
    Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.

    Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't like get elected

    Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:31 am

    Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch, the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks, it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.

    orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational discussion here.

    Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    Dear orwell

    re Anna

    Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish Zionist crowd in the US.

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am

    orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?

    Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker just went up for taking on these two wackos.

    Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless I shell out some unknown amount of money.

    If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.

    Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information. Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?

    orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.

    Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product.

    backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and strength.

    BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am

    BannanaBoat – that too!

    Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    This is interesting:

    "In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank! for which he was paid $500,000.

    "Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.

    Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder, a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance officials, among others, participated in the fraud."

    The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia relations would suffer as a result."

    More: http://observer.com/2017/07/natalia-veselnitskaya-hillary-clinton-magnitsky-act/

    Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm

    Very interesting, Zim.

    Bart in Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?

    Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl clutching.

    Cal , July 13, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    WOW..excellent reporting.

    BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    nice backgrounder for an ever evolving story censorship is censorship by any other name!

    BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am

    Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view, as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.

    Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.

    Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.

    "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.

    'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of 'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'

    'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.

    'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process.

    'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.

    "The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's statements appear factually sound."

    Throwing a Curveball at 'Intelligence Community Consensus' on Russia By Scott Ritter http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

    Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC, as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders aren't going to listen them?

    Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm

    Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain historical events you've told us about.

    Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

    Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.

    John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm

    Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.

    I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
    If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
    Thanks.

    Roger Annis , July 13, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in Parliament.

    A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/when-it-comes-to-magnitsky-laws-its-clear-what-russia-is-looking-for/article35678618/

    John-Albert Eadie , July 13, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination.

    backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm

    Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger, with a link to this article.

    Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.

    Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    "Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.

    ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm

    Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not).

    Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    ToivoS,

    thank you for this background information.

    My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented as socialist instead of social democratic ones.

    backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.

    I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them.

    Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm

    backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.

    In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt, and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.

    Bruce Walker , July 13, 2017 at 9:29 pm

    I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.

    I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You all have a nice Peacefull day

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am

    Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."

    No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized (sarc)!

    But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online). Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that it was in the Russian language. LOL

    Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."

    Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here without going back in time for more fun!

    I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up.

    Keep smiling, Joe.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am

    Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up. Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.

    Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")

    Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am

    Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.

    A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy, confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.

    Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.

    And now the disclaimer.

    Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving , caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.

    Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    backwardsevolution,

    thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading "Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.

    The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.

    With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.

    On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne (Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.

    Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am

    Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others are the creative inventors.

    Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks that way.

    Thanks, Joe.

    Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am

    Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.

    During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to his titles. The office became hereditary.

    When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony. Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.

    When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son, Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.

    Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8 when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.

    When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.

    Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:45 am

    The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/

    Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies (never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.

    Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm

    I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.

    For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.

    backwardsevolution,

    in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.

    Miranda Keefe,

    I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.

    Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz ). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants / money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.

    Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nppst

    History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal position of the church in the

    Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable art work also.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am

    Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings, gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with it?

    Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    @ backwards

    " Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'

    imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside some loot for themselves.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.

    Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am

    An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some such belief.

    Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia, the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia and China.

    mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know .. (Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)

    Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table? Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your not, what compromise with you?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute, but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?

    Always like reading your comments mike K Joe

    Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm

    Joe,

    when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.

    Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm

    This is where the Two Joe's are alike.

    mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm

    I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now, those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.

    Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    Yep

    BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm

    Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of the nightmare USA society has become.

    ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
    Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!

    John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be a top historian as well as a top journalist.

    Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    "Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains a cherished value."

    A Response to William Browder
    By Rachel Bauman
    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/response-william-browder-16654

    Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights activist".

    Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.

    http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.686922.1447865981!/image/78952068.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_625/78952068.jpg

    Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    "never driven by the money"
    https://www.thejc.com/culture/books/be-careful-of-putin-he-is-a-true-enemy-of-jews-1.61745

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:50 am

    Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!

    "It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by lobbying it.

    This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.

    "The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what the best constellation of players will be on this.

    "There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting options, but I'm not going to name any names."

    What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am

    Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case is the margin of error.

    Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm

    "no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]

    "there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.

    "The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?

    "When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.

    "Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising that none of it gets mentioned.

    "It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."

    http://forward.com/news/376788/the-secret-jewish-history-of-donald-trump-jrs-russia-scandal/

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:15 am

    Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As the article says, he leaves a lot out.

    Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm

    In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University – The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University – Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.

    Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper

    The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:

    "With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632989

    In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts, Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud). Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am

    What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.

    It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel, almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.

    Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.

    Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am

    " His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "

    The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
    And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.

    Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm

    Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbgNeQ_xINM

    In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".

    The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.

    Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.

    Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

    In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.

    HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
    The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled in me the sence of
    priority.
    Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
    I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy tppics with their children.
    At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
    They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
    Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls, that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
    This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
    So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of popular media outlets.
    As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this journalist deviation from the norms as well.
    I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am

    Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay, enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.

    Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?

    I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya. My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.

    The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.

    Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?

    F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am

    I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election. Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under control.

    Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am

    It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.

    I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.

    When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger .she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.

    I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.

    Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.

    Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

    Joe

    Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am

    "Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."

    Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
    I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.

    Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am

    The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.

    Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    JT,
    Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.

    Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm

    I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.

    Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm

    You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.

    Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

    My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:

    "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

    This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives "play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever. The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am

    Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.

    Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

    yessir, love it

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am

    Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers would still be most scary.

    Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am

    Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.

    A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

    The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

    In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

    The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

    Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

    When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

    Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

    According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

    Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am

    Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.

    Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=6180

    National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
    NCJRS Abstract
    The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

    NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
    Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW

    United States of America
    Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
    Date Published: 1971
    Page Count: 15
    .
    Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,

    HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,

    THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.

    Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification

    Country: United States of America
    Language: English

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."

    A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there. That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.

    Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has done a lot of good.

    BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:45 am

    USA justice for Oilygarchs; Ignore capital crimes and mass destruction ; concentrate on entertaining shenanigans.

    Cal , July 13, 2017 at 11:39 pm

    If Trump wants to survive he better let go of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

    Lets start here:

    Trump's personal attorneys are reportedly fed up with Jared Kushner
    http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-trump-lawyers-donald-jr-emails-2017-7

    Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior White House adviser.
    Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
    The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner "as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign

    Second
    Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
    Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.

    Third
    So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?

    Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar

    And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?

    Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/03/sergei-gorkov-russian-banker-jared-kushner

    The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals." Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
    It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.

    Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before
    http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
    2 days ago –
    Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his father-in-law's

    The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.

    At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
    The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8 billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
    And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start. On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall, a hotel and high-priced condominiums"

    Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange for giving them something from the Trump WH.

    BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:52 am

    The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has gone to the very very very DARK side.

    Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol

    Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am

    What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today, and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.

    Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election. Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information! They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures, not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.

    So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative: that has been shown to be true over and over again.

    This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism, but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.

    Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am

    Chris – good post. Thanks.

    mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am

    Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual post.

    Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am

    It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader". http://www.billbrowder.com/bio

    HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am

    One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
    I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
    The largest money laundering group in US is
    both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S. politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and owners of construvtion firms.
    Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
    flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
    GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
    Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own culture.
    It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
    Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
    Which he did.
    His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural grouping.
    No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
    One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture one does not have to believe in G.
    There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
    The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.

    Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am

    With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate' I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions, that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making. Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story' and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed it appears

    BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 11:00 am

    HEAR -- HEAR -- Excellent --

    Zachary Smith , July 14, 2017 at 11:04 am

    I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.

    Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no alternative.

    How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy? Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.

    Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am

    Spot on.

    backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white), but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?

    It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.

    Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm

    Nice comment.

    None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of the people involved in a issue or story.

    We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.

    Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

    Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

    1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

    2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

    3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

    4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

    5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

    6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

    7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

    8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

    10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

    11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

    12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

    13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

    14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

    15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

    16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

    17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

    18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

    19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

    20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

    21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

    22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

    23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

    24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

    25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

    Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

    Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
    by H. Michael Sweeney
    copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

    (Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)

    1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

    2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .

    3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

    4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

    5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

    6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

    7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

    8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
    1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
    2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
    3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

    Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am

    I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company, a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks, just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written off with the "no evidence" argument.

    Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.

    I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.

    Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm

    Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting the facts.

    The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.

    The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".

    Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.

    Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism. Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime and terrorism in Syria.

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am

    Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.

    Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm

    When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".

    exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.

    mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless. If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what we must counter to wake people up.

    Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds to a rebuttal.

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am

    Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.

    The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.

    Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed blog post in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.

    Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?

    Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe

    PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?

    Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her to win.

    Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:

    "as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr. said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting. Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."

    Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 10:27 pm

    Thanks!

    exiled off mainstreet , July 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.

    Mike , July 14, 2017 at 9:36 pm

    Pretty interesting:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russia-bill-browder-testify-senate-links-natalia-veselnitskaya-steele-dossier-a7840061.html

    Big Tim , July 15, 2017 at 12:31 am

    "Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"

    Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am

    Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.

    Anna , July 15, 2017 at 10:25 am

    "Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
    Agree.

    P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist. Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity. As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold war.

    Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!

    MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    Enough's Enough
    STOP DNC/DEMs
    #CryBabyFakeNewsBS

    Support Duly ELECTED
    @POTUS @realDonaldTrump
    #BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
    #DrainTheSwamp
    #MAGA

    Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    CN article on 911 truthers:

    https://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html

    Finnish wonderer , July 15, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but still finished his documentary.

    Mark Dankof , July 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American Republic is dead.

    Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm

    Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about the censorship. Sad.

    Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:41 pm

    Note "allegations that are unsupported by facts".

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/19/a-reminder-about-comment-rules-2/

    David , July 16, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:

    From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), and allegations that are unsupported by facts.

    Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm

    My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc). I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.

    Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.

    Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am

    You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.

    Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.

    "David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.

    Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".

    Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".

    David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm

    I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.

    Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm

    The cowardly claim of "censorship".

    The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".

    No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.

    Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.

    dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    torrent for the film?

    Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am

    Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-04-04%20CEG%20to%20DHS%20(Akhmetshin%20Information)%20with%20attachment.pdf

    Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.

    But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.

    It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William Browder.

    After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".

    Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.

    In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.

    Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.

    David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not. Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.

    Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".

    My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.

    Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.

    And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.

    Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.

    I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.

    David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper" as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day if you just read it.

    David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican) to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.

    Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility" and "standing" of William Browder.

    Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and slurs against RP.

    Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.

    Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.

    But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.

    David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.

    Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

    We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during a Perplexing situation.

    This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.

    The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton, regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.

    This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information is share with other People.

    This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton Foundation.

    We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that Crime.

    The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.

    There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.

    We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.

    This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.

    We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.

    There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump, then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans, because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.

    There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.

    We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.

    There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.

    These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime, or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.

    There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District, then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.

    There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.

    There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President, and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,

    There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.

    MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.

    http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/10/trumps-inner-circle-met-with-no-ordinary-russian-lawyer/

    Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:

    "So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.

    "And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"

    Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to flourish in Israel.

    A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

    The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

    In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

    The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

    Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

    When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

    Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

    According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

    Why was Bharara fired?

    Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.

    Ain't gonna happen.

    David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case, days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors. Hmmmm.

    David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.

    Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic Party political consultant.

    From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington, Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

    Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.

    Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/

    Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune. Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.

    Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".

    Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    Very interesting.

    [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

    Highly recommended!
    Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
    "... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
    "... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
    "... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
    Dec 10, 2017 | off-guardian.org

    by VT

    The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at this gem :

    The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" – the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.

    But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.

    As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and not by Putin at all.

    The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.

    What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.

    When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.

    In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't.

    No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.

    The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.

    Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant .

    A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:

    "We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.

    By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.


    michaelk says November 26, 2017

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/26/big-issue-who-will-step-in-after-bullies-have-silenced-dissenters

    From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail on Sunday by Nick Robinson?

    michaelk says November 26, 2017
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5117723/Nick-Robinson-Putin-using-fake-news-weaken-West.html

    This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.

    michaelk says November 23, 2017
    I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.

    The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.

    rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
    Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles from ever working again in the media.

    Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..

    michaelk says November 23, 2017
    At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.

    The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.

    I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality and real purpose.

    The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore.

    All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls. It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.

    WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
    Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.

    John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day.

    rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
    The Guardian is now owned by Neocon Americans, that is why it is demonising Russia. Simple as that.
    WeatherEye says November 29, 2017
    Evidence?
    Harry Stotle says November 21, 2017
    The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they play a central role in 'the power of nightmares' https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
    rtj1211 says November 21, 2017
    So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?

    If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism?

    In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave ..

    I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..

    michaelk says November 21, 2017
    It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.

    What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies, or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth in a chaotic world.

    This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine the social order and fundamental power relationships.

    The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a 'crime.'

    One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.

    We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks represented.

    WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
    A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
    tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
    Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".

    Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public interest?

    In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to Ł1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.

    Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance. In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.

    Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/mps-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt#comments

    The fact that it's not shows clearly the fake Guardian/Observer claim and their real agenda.

    WE ARE DEFINITELY LIVING IN DISORIENTATION TIMES and the Guardian/Observer are leading the charge.

    tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
    Correction: DISORIENTATING TIMES
    Peter says November 21, 2017
    For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
    Jim says November 21, 2017
    It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
    BigB says November 20, 2017
    Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.

    A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison – she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones attention away from ones natural instinct.

    [Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment ) ]

    So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.

    jag37777 says November 20, 2017
    Browder is a spook.
    susannapanevin says November 20, 2017
    Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin .
    Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
    This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.

    In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.

    labrebisgalloise says November 20, 2017
    I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
    Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
    Hey, MbS is also an "anti-corruption" campaigner! If the media says so it must be true!
    Sav says November 20, 2017
    Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily people can be brainwashed.

    The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.

    A Petherbridge says November 20, 2017
    Well said – interesting to know what the Guardian is paid to run these stories funded by this arm of US state propaganda.
    bevin says November 20, 2017
    The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc.

    Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..

    This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.

    Admin says November 21, 2017
    The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia?

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    Highly recommended!
    This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
    Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente) with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
    At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
    The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
    Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of 'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
    "... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
    "... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
    "... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
    "... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
    "... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
    "... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
    "... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
    "... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
    "... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
    "... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
    "... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
    "... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
    "... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
    "... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
    "... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
    "... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
    "... Dr. Strangelove ..."
    "... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
    Nov 13, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

    Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black Americans by law enforcement."

    In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.

    "Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."

    Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will end."

    The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.

    Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

    To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms. But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to Facebook's data , 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not exactly a viral smash.

    Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts targeted "animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed " Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According to its " deliberately broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part, documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.

    However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping 82 percent of Democrats that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the attacks of 9/11 . And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.

    As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities. Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.

    So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?

    Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship

    A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."

    Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force.

    Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.

    Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.

    Before Congress, a String of Deceptions

    Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

    Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate, helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.

    In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."

    Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.

    The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda, the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was named by Spanish investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.

    Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and a look at his single tweet promoting the article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political divisions."

    Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast transcript of his testimony) was a single link to an RT article that factually documented a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets, from the Houston Chronicle to the Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual events.

    Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.

    In the articles cited by Watts during his testimony, neither RT nor Sputnik made any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually every major Turkish news organization ( here , here , here and here ). What's more, the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed the severity of the event, citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover." This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.

    Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.

    Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.

    Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court

    During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures" to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.

    Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.

    The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal.

    The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.

    In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record.

    When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent.

    When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression. He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for defamation and libel.

    Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.

    The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.

    FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists

    Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."

    Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a similar characterization of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge."

    FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization described by journalists Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, " The Geography of Intellect ," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising." Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational thought."

    While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda. By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."

    Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy. Today, he is remembered fondly on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.

    The Paranoid Style

    This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling. Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been mysteriously scrubbed from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable claims about Russian influence.

    While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said, claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."

    "If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or offer any examples.

    "Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."

    It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues. He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."

    According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely unexamined.

    Domestic Agent of Influence

    "I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."

    By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."

    Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have triggered congressional hearings.

    Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation, this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.

    In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and consular raids to arbitrary crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.

    It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.

    In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.

    Read part two here .

    Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of " Goliath ," " Republican Gomorrah ," and " The 51 Day War ." He is the co-host of the podcast, Moderate Rebels . Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal .

    Related Articles

    [Dec 05, 2017] Inside Casino Capitalism by Max Holland

    Notable quotes:
    "... Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco ..."
    "... The Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... The triumph of gossip over substance is manifest in many other ways. Wall Street's deft manipulation of the business press is barely touched upon, and the laissez-faire ..."
    "... Fulminations about the socially corrosive effects of greed aside, the buyout phenomenon may represent one of the biggest changes in the way American business is conducted since the rise of the public corporation, nothing less than a transformation of managerial into financial capitalism. The ferocious market for corporate control that emerged during the 1980s has few parallels in business history, but there are two: the trusts that formed early in this century and the conglomerate mania that swept corporate America during the 1960s. Both waves resulted in large social and economic costs, and there is little assurance that the corporate infatuation with debt will not exact a similarly heavy toll. ..."
    "... the high levels of debt associated with buyouts and other forms of corporate restructuring create fragility in business structures and vulnerability to economic cycles ..."
    "... Germany and Japan incur higher levels of debt for expansion and investment, whereas equivalent American indebtedness is linked to the recent market for corporate control. That creates a brittle structure, one that threatens to turn the U.S. government into something of an ultimate guarantor if and when things do fall about. It is too easy to construct a scenario in which corporate indebtedness forces the federal government into the business of business. The savings-and-loan bailout is a painfully obvious harbinger of such a development. ..."
    "... The many ramifications of the buyout mania deserve thoughtful treatment. Basic issues of corporate governance and accountability ought to be openly debated and resolved if the American economy is to deliver the maximum benefit to society and not just unconscionable rewards to a handful of bankers, all out of proportion to their social productivity. It is disappointing, but a sign of the times, that the best book about the deal of deals fails to educate as well as it entertains. ..."
    Washington DeCoded

    Inside Casino Capitalism Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco
    By Bryan Burrough and John Helyar
    Harper & Row. 528 pp. $22.95

    In 1898, Adolphus Green, chairman of the National Biscuit Company, found himself faced with the task of choosing a trademark for his newly formed baking concern. Green was a progressive businessman. He refused to employ child labor, even though it was then a common practice, and he offered his bakery employees the option to buy stock at a discount. Green therefore thought that his trademark should symbolize Nabisco's fundamental business values, "not merely to make dividends for the stockholders of his company, but to enhance the general prosperity and the moral sentiment of the United States." Eventually he decided that a cross with two bars and an oval – a medieval symbol representing the triumph of the moral and spiritual over the base and material – should grace the package of every Nabisco product.

    If they had wracked their brains for months, Bryan Burrough and John Helyar could not have come up with a more ironic metaphor for their book. The fall of Nabisco, and its corporate partner R.J. Reynolds, is nothing less than the exact opposite of Green's business credo, a compelling tale of corporate and Wall Street greed featuring RJR Nabisco officers who first steal shareholders blind and then justify their epic displays of avarice by claiming to maximize shareholder value.

    The event which made the RJR Nabisco story worth telling was the 1988 leveraged buyout (LBO) of the mammoth tobacco and food conglomerate, then the 19th-largest industrial corporation in America. Battles for corporate control were common during the loosely regulated 1980s, and the LBO was just one method for capturing the equity of a corporation. (In a typical LBO, a small group of top management and investment bankers put 10 percent down and finance the rest of their purchase through high-interest loans or bonds. If the leveraged, privately-owned corporation survives, the investors, which they can re-sell public shares, reach the so-called "pot of gold"; but if the corporation cannot service its debt, everything is at risk, because the collateral is the corporation itself.

    The sheer size of RJR Nabisco and the furious bidding war that erupted guaranteed unusual public scrutiny of this particular piece of financial engineering. F. Ross Johnson, the conglomerate's flamboyant, free-spending CEO (RJR had its own corporate airline), put his own company into play with a $75-a-share bid in October. Experienced buyout artists on Wall Street, however, immediately realized that Johnson was trying to play two incompatible games. LBOs typically put corporations such as RJR Nabisco through a ringer in order to pay the mammoth debt incurred after a buyout. But Johnson, desiring to keep corporate perquisites intact, "low-balled" his offer. Other buyout investors stepped forward with competing bids, and after a six-week-long auction the buyout boutique of Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Company (KKR) emerged on top with a $109-a-share bid. The $25-billion buyout took its place as one of the defining business events of the 1980s

    Burrough and Helyar, who covered the story for The Wall Street Journal, supply a breezy, colorful, blow-by-blow account of the "deal from hell" (as one businessman characterized a leveraged buyout). The language of Wall Street, full of incongruous "Rambo" jargon from the Vietnam War, is itself arresting. Buyout artists, who presumably never came within 10,000 miles of wartime Saigon, talk about "napalming" corporate perquisites or liken their strategy to "charging through the rice paddies, not stopping for anything and taking no prisoners."

    At the time, F. Ross Johnson was widely pilloried in the press as the embodiment of excess; his conflict of interest was obvious. Yet Burrough and Helyar show that Johnson, for all his free-spending ways, was way over his head in the major leagues of greed, otherwise known as Wall Street in the 1980s. What, after all, is more rapacious: the roughly $100 million Johnson stood to gain if his deal worked out over five years, or the $45 million in expenses KKR demanded for waiting 60 minutes while Ross Johnson prepared a final competing bid?

    Barbarians is, in the parlance of the publishing world, a good read. At the same time, unfortunately, a disclaimer issued by the authors proves only too true. Anyone looking for a definitive judgment of LBOs will be disappointed. Burrough and Helyar do at least ask the pertinent question: What does all this activity have to do with building and sustaining a business? But authors should not only pose questions; they should answer them, or at least try.

    Admittedly, the single most important answer to the RJR puzzle could not be provided by Burrough and Helyar because it is not yet known. The major test of any financial engineering is its effect on the long-term vitality of the leveraged corporation, as measured by such key indicators as market share (and not just whether the corporation survives its debt, as the authors imply). However, a highly-leveraged RJR Nabisco is already selling off numerous profitable parts of its business because they are no longer a "strategic fit": Wall Street code signifying a need for cash in order to service debts and avoid bankruptcy.

    If the authors were unable to predict the ultimate outcome, they still had a rare opportunity to explain how and why an LBO is engineered. Unfortunately, their fixation on re-creating events and dialogue – which admittedly produces a fast-moving book – forced them to accept the issues as defined by the participants themselves. There is no other way to explain the book's uncritical stance. When, for example, the RJR Nabisco board of directors tried to decide which bid to accept, Burrough and Helyar report that several directors sided with KKR's offer because the LBO boutique "knew the value of keeping [employees] happy." It is impossible to tell from the book whether the directors knew this to be true or took KKR's word. Even a cursory investigation would have revealed that KKR is notorious for showing no concern for employees below senior management after a leveraged buyout.

    The triumph of gossip over substance is manifest in many other ways. Wall Street's deft manipulation of the business press is barely touched upon, and the laissez-faire environment procured by buyout artists via their political contributions is scarcely mentioned, crucial though it is. Nowhere are the authors' priorities more obvious than in the number of words devoted to Henry Kravis's conspicuous consumption compared to those devoted to the details of the RJR deal. In testimony before Congress last year, no less an authority than Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady – himself an old Wall Street hand – noted that the substitution of tax-deductible debt for taxable income is "the mill in which the grist of takeover premiums is ground."

    In the case of RJR Nabisco, 81 percent of the $9.9 billion premium paid to shareholders was derived from tax breaks achievable after the buyout. This singularly important fact cannot be found in the book, however; nor will a reader learn that after the buyout the U.S. Treasury was obligated to refund RJR as much as $1 billion because of its post-buyout debt burden. In Barbarians, more time is spent describing Kravis's ostentatious gifts to his fashion-designer wife than to the tax considerations that make or break these deals.

    Fulminations about the socially corrosive effects of greed aside, the buyout phenomenon may represent one of the biggest changes in the way American business is conducted since the rise of the public corporation, nothing less than a transformation of managerial into financial capitalism. The ferocious market for corporate control that emerged during the 1980s has few parallels in business history, but there are two: the trusts that formed early in this century and the conglomerate mania that swept corporate America during the 1960s. Both waves resulted in large social and economic costs, and there is little assurance that the corporate infatuation with debt will not exact a similarly heavy toll.

    As the economist Henry Kaufman has written, the high levels of debt associated with buyouts and other forms of corporate restructuring create fragility in business structures and vulnerability to economic cycles. Inexorably, the shift away from equity invites the close, even intrusive involvement of institutional investors (banks, pension funds, and insurance companies) that provide the financing. Superficially, this moves America closer to the system that prevails in Germany and Japan, where historically the relationship between the suppliers and users of capital is close. But Germany and Japan incur higher levels of debt for expansion and investment, whereas equivalent American indebtedness is linked to the recent market for corporate control. That creates a brittle structure, one that threatens to turn the U.S. government into something of an ultimate guarantor if and when things do fall about. It is too easy to construct a scenario in which corporate indebtedness forces the federal government into the business of business. The savings-and-loan bailout is a painfully obvious harbinger of such a development.

    The many ramifications of the buyout mania deserve thoughtful treatment. Basic issues of corporate governance and accountability ought to be openly debated and resolved if the American economy is to deliver the maximum benefit to society and not just unconscionable rewards to a handful of bankers, all out of proportion to their social productivity. It is disappointing, but a sign of the times, that the best book about the deal of deals fails to educate as well as it entertains.

    [Dec 03, 2017] Is Washington the Most Corrupt Government in History by Paul Craig Roberts

    Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies that it perpetuated.
    Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
    Dec 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor "investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So where is the evidence?

    It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html

    Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it requires to justify its massive budget and power.

    Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's government is allied with his enemies?

    How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United States?

    Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the uranium sale was real.

    Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?

    Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.

    The failure of the US and European media is extreme.

    The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head.

    Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his "compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html

    The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife, was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the "terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American superpower?

    Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?

    Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?

    Why was there no presstitute interest in the fact that the SEAL unit, from which the SEALs on the alleged raid on bin Laden's compound were drawn, was loaded against regulations in one 50-year old Vietnam era helicopter and shot down in Afghanistan, with all lives lost? Why was there no presstitute interest in the parents of the SEALs complaints about inappropriate procedures that cost their sons' lives and about fears expressed to them by sons that something was wrong and they felt endangered? http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/navy-seals-father-obama-sent-my-son-to-his-death/
    and https://www.military1.com/navy/article/403494-navy-seals-parents-sue-biden-panetta-over-sons-deaths/ and http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/families-of-seal-team-6-to-reveal-why-they-think-the-govt-is-as-much-responsible-for-the-death-of-their-sons-as-the-taliban

    Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.

    Why wasn't Congress interested?

    Why was the live Pakistani TV interview with an eye witness of the alleged raid on bin Laden's compound not reported in the US media? The witness contradicted every aspect of the official story. And this was immediately after the event. There was no time for anyone to concoct an elaborate counter-story or motive to do so. Here is the interview: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/15/pakistan-samaa-tv-interview-eyewitness-alleged-osama-bin-laden-killing/ and here is a verified translation that confirms the accuracy of the English subscripts: https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Pakistan-TV-Report-Contrad-by-paul-craig-roberts-110806-879.html

    Osama bin Laden had been dead for a decade prior to the false claim that Navy SEALs murdered him in Pakistan in May 2011. Here are the obituraries from December 2001: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/20/bin-ladens-obituary-notice/ and this one from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/12/26/report-bin-laden-already-dead.html

    Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost his movement by claiming credit?
    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/

    See also:

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/07/another-fake-bin-laden-story-paul-craig-roberts/

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-orders-purge-of-osama-bin-ladens-death-files-from-data-bank/5342055

    http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2013/334-int-32

    https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Creating-Evidence-Where-Th-by-paul-craig-roberts-110805-618.html

    https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Pakistan-TV-Report-Contrad

    Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.

    And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.

    So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?

    Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?

    [Dec 03, 2017] The GOP tax bill is of the lobbies, by the PACs and for the money.

    Dec 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , December 2, 2017 at 8:29 am

    Renegade ( ex-? ) Republican David Stockman NAILS IT TO THE WALL:

    To be sure, some element of political calculus always lies behind legislation. For instance, the Dems didn't pass the Wagner Act in 1935, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as exercises in pure civic virtue -- these measures targeted huge constituencies with tens of millions of votes at stake.

    Still, threadbare theories and untoward effects are just that; they can't be redeemed by the risible claim that this legislative Rube Goldberg contraption being jammed through sight unseen ( in ACA redux fashion ) is for the benefit of the rank and file Republican voters, and most especially not for the dispossessed independents and Dems of Flyover America who voted for Trump out of protest against the failing status quo.

    To the contrary. The GOP tax bill is of the lobbies, by the PACs and for the money. Period.

    There is no higher purpose or even nugget of conservative economic principle to it. The battle cry of "pro-growth tax cuts" is just a warmed over 35-year-old mantra from the Reagan era that does not remotely reflect the actual content of the bill or disguise what it really is: namely, a cowardly infliction of more than $2 trillion of debt on future American taxpayers in order to fund tax relief today for the GOP's K Street and Wall Street paymasters.

    On a net basis, in fact, fully 97% of the $1.412 trillion revenue loss in the Senate Committee bill over the next decade is attributable to the $1.369 trillion cost of cutting the corporate rate from 35% to 20% (and repeal of the related AMT). All the rest of the massive bill is just a monumental zero-sum pot stirring operation.

    https://tinyurl.com/yal6ls89

    Stockman, who knows federal budgeting better than most of us know the contents of our own homes, goes on to shred the tax bill item by item, leaving a smoking, scorched-earth moonscape in his deadly rhetorical wake. And he's not done yet.

    But Lordy, how he scourges the last hurrah of the know-nothing R party, just before it gets pounded senseless at the polls next year. Bubble III is the last hope of the retrograde Republican Congressional rabble. But it's a 50/50 proposition at best that our beloved bubble lasts through next November. :-(

    tegnost , December 2, 2017 at 8:56 am

    thanks Jim, yes, this looks like it will knock the legs out of the "main st" economy, but over at versailles on the potomac they'll be listening to/playing the fiddle and watching the country burn while guzzling 300 dollar scotch and and admiring their campfire.

    ambrit , December 2, 2017 at 9:19 am

    Right next to "Versailles on the Potomac" is the site of the former Bonus Army camp, Anacostia Flats. The burning of the Bonus Army camp at Anacostia Flats could be seen, as a red glow, from the White House. Historians charitable to Herbert Hoover suggest that Gen. Douglass MacArthur 'conned' Hoover into letting the Army 'disperse' the Bonus Army. The resulting spectacle can be said to be one of the prime reasons why the American public rejected Hoover when he ran for re-election against Franklin Roosevelt.
    I don't know if Hoover played the fiddle, but MacArthur was known to be able to play politicians like one.
    The lesson here, if there is one, is that the present occupant of the White House had better be very circumspect about taking advice from Generals.

    nonclassical , December 2, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    "anacostia flats" bonus army raided by Wall Street General MacArthur which is reason in previous iteration of Wall Street power grab by "American Liberty League", ("The Plot To Seize the White House"-Jules Archer) Marine General Smedley Butler felt forced play whistle-blower, providing FDR leverage he needed to prosecute banksters.


    Big River Bandido December 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    The gist of the commenter's statement was true - Democrats are totally complicit in the end result of Republican economic and foreign policy. Until now, Republicans could only deliver on their promises when Democrats helped them out. The Democrats' enabling strategy eventually alienated their own core supporters. With this tax cut, the Republicans have shown, for the first time, the ability to enact and sign their own legislation.

    The Democrats basically accommodated the Republicans long enough to ensure their own irrelevance. They will not rise again until their "mixed stances" and those who encourage them are purged.

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

    Notable quotes:
    "... Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history. ..."
    "... An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. ..."
    "... One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise. ..."
    "... The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women). ..."
    "... McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights. ..."
    "... Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. ..."
    "... Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, July 23, 2016 at 7:07 pm
    An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that rang true:

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

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

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

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

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

    Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 11:16 am

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

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

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

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

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

    yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm

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

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

    Highly recommended!
    The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite. If you look at the role of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
    "... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
    "... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
    "... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
    "... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
    "... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
    "... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
    "... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
    Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser counterparts around the world.

    Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.

    This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers."

    The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt has done so for many, many centuries.

    ... ... ...

    From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of the government or private life they were connected.

    This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.

    Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?

    ... ... ...

    Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out, go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject defeat for the other.

    Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the Gulf War in Iraq.

    ... ... ...

    This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment.

    One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.

    This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders.

    The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.

    It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.

    Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.

    The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist.

    Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3

    [Nov 18, 2017] How Americas Deep State Operates To Control The Message by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. ..."
    "... Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents. ..."
    "... Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker than the Empire. ..."
    "... Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line. ..."
    "... I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it. ..."
    "... The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old idiots are in charge of these things. ..."
    Nov 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation

    It is not possible to overstate the power of certain constituencies and corporate lobbies in the United States.

    These pressure groups, joined by powerful government agencies, many of which have secret agendas that focus on national security, constitute what is increasingly being recognized as "Deep State America." Deep State is the widespread belief that there exists in many countries an entrenched and largely hidden infrastructure that really controls the national narrative and runs things. It explains why, for example, a country like the United States is perpetually at war even though the wars have been disastrous failures ever since Korea and have not made the nation more secure.

    To be sure, certain constituencies have benefitted from global instability and conflict, to include defense industries, big government in general, and the national security state . They all work together and hand-in-hand with the corporate media to sustain the narrative that the United States is perpetually under threat, even though it is not.

    The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. American President Donald Trump briefly met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. Putin reportedly told Trump that Russia "absolutely had not meddled" in the 2016 US election and Trump then told reporters that he believed the Russian leader meant what he said, "which is good." As détente with Russia is not considered desirable by the Deep State, there was an immediate explosion of a contrary narrative, namely that Trump believes a Russian "enemy" and does not trust what his own intelligence agencies have told him about 2016 because he is being "played" by Putin.

    This story was repeated both on television news and in all the mainstream newspapers without exception, eventually forcing Trump to recant and say that he does believe in US intelligence.

    Not a single major media outlet in the US reported that it just might be possible that Putin was telling the truth and that the intelligence community, which has been wrong many times over the past twenty years, might have to look again at what it considers to be evidence. No journalist had the courage to point out that the claims of the Washington national security team have been remarkably devoid of anything credible to support the conclusions about what the Russian government might or might not have been up to. That is what a good journalist is supposed to do and it has nothing to do with whether or not one admires or loathes either Putin or Trump.

    That the relationship between Moscow and Washington should be regarded as important given the capability of either country to incinerate the planet would appear to be a given, but the Washington-New York Establishment, which is euphemism for Deep State, is actually more concerned with maintaining its own power by marginalizing Donald Trump and maintaining the perception that Vladimir Putin is the enemy head of state of a Russia that is out to cripple American democracy.

    Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents.

    Driven by Russophobia over the 2016 election, a group of leading social media corporations including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter have been experimenting with ways to self-censor their product to keep out foreign generated or "hate" content.

    They even have a label for it: "cyberhate" . Congress is also toying with legislation that will make certain viewpoints unacceptable or even illegal, including a so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that would potentially penalize anyone who criticizes Israel and could serve as a model for banning other undesirable speech. "Defamatory speech" could even eventually include any criticism of the government or political leaders, as is now the case in Turkey, which is the country where the "Deep State" was invented.

    serotonindumptruck , Nov 17, 2017 8:14 PM

    Fear is the order of the day. Be very, very afraid of that militarily-weak nation on the other side of the world, who poses no legitimate and imminent threat to the US. Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker than the Empire. It represents the death knell of Empire, and is typically the final stage of economic and political collapse.

    Publicus_Reanimated , Nov 17, 2017 9:07 PM

    Howard Beale: "We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!"

    -- Network

    If you are too young to have heard of this movie, now you know.

    Cherubim , Nov 17, 2017 9:53 PM

    Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line.

    I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it.

    The only thing in history that I know that would compare to this is the Pravda in the old Soviet days of Brezhnev. And I'm not sure how that came finally tumbling down.

    wide angle tree , Nov 17, 2017 9:55 PM

    The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old idiots are in charge of these things.

    [Nov 13, 2017] Why Robert Mueller Was Selected To Be The Special Prosecutor

    It might well be that Chrystal night in KSA can be a serious blow to fouces which want to depose President Trump. People arrested, especally prince Bandar know way too much. I wonder what will happen if Trump manage to get from Mohammed bin Salman protocols of interrogation of Price Bandarr on interesting to him topics.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful. ..."
    "... Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers ..."
    "... William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25] ..."
    "... Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case to Comey. ..."
    "... So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence', then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller are a team - a team that serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public. ..."
    "... CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment, I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and free-of-charge basis to publish. ..."
    Nov 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    It all began with the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in the Saudi city of Khobar, which killed 19 U.S. military, who worked at the Dharan air base three miles away.

    That incident became the lynchpin of the accusation by the Saudi royal family, the U.S. State Department , and the CIA , that Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism .

    Both Robert Mueller and his longtime ally James Comey (the latter of whose firing as the FBI chief, by U.S. President Trump, had sparked the appointment of Mueller to become the Special Counsel investigating the U.S. President) performed crucial roles in establishing that the Khobar Towers bombing had been a Hezbollah operation run by the Iranian Government - and, starting upon this basis, in helping to develop the case that Iran "is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism."

    However, as has been made clear by several great independent investigative journalists, on the basis of far more-solid documentation than the official account, the Khobar Towers bombing was instead entirely a fundamentalist-Sunni operation, specifically perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which hates Shia and which also hates America's military presence in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden's claim of the bombing's having been done by Al Qaeda, was, in fact, entirely honest and accurate.

    America's "Deep State," which extends to Saudi Arabia and to a number of other Governments - it's an international network - is deeply committed to supporting the fundamentalist-Sunni war to conquer and destroy Shia Islam, and not merely to conquer the leading Shia nation, which is Iran. The U.S. Government has intensely taken a side in the Sunni-Shia religious war. That war is comparable in some respects to the 30 Years' War (1618-1648) between Catholics and Protestants , which killed an estimated eight million Europeans; and, both the United States and Israel have clearly joined with the fundamentalist-Sunni leaders, against Iran, and against Shia generally.

    The reasons behind the prevailing lies about this matter will also be documented here. Discrepancies between the official story and the solidly documented facts, need to be explained, in order for a reader to be able to understand truthfully why Mueller (who cooperated with Comey in order to rig the official account of the bombing, so as to condemn Iran and Hezbollah instead of Al Qaeda) received his appointment. This is also important in order to understand why Trump, though rabidly anti-Iranian himself, is nonetheless insufficiently anti-Iranian to satisfy the Sauds, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or the rest of the U.S.-and-allied Deep State.

    Before proceeding further here, however, the statistical falseness of the allegation that Iran is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism has to be clearly recognized as being the ultimate fact ; because, if this entire question - to which Mueller and Comey contributed so importantly to answering by their identifying Iran (and Shia generally) as being precisely that ('the foremost state sponsor of terrorism') -- can be assessed at all objectively, then the statistical answer to it would certainly be the objective one.

    Wikipedia's article on "Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" says: "According to the Global Terrorism Database , the majority of deaths, more than 94% attributed to Islamic terrorism since 2001, were perpetrated by Sunni jihadists of the Islamic State , al-Qaeda and others. [3] [4] ." Only 6% were Shiites, at all -- from any country. Similarly, my own independent study of 54 especially prominent global instances of Islamic terrorism was headlined (and reported that) "All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel." (The anti-Israel terrorist instances might constitute the "6%" which was referred to in the Wikipedia article, but that article provided no good link to its source for the "6%" figure.)

    So: the basic allegation is false, that Iran is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism; the general allegation isn't anywhere near to being true. It's a lie.

    More specifically, now, regarding the Khobar Towers incident, which triggered the start of this fraudulent generalization:

    The Saudi royal family asserted, immediately after the bombing, that the attack had been perpetrated by jihadists who had returned from Afghanistan and who were now fighting to overthrow Saudi Arabia's Government (the royal Saud family).

    For example, on 15 August 1996, the New York Times headlined "Saudi Rebels Are Main Suspects In June Bombing of a U.S. Base" , and reported that, "The Government of Saudi Arabia now believes that native Saudi Islamic militants, including many veterans of the Afghan war, carried out the June 25 bombing that killed 19 American servicemen at a base in Dhahran, Saudi officials said today." However, the "mujahideen" who had fought in Afghanistan were paid and backed both by the Sauds and by the U.S. Government, For example, as early as 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski flew into Pakistan and exhorted the Taliban there to become mujahideen in Afghanistan because "That land over there is yours; you'll go back to it one day, because your fight will prevail, and you will have your homes and your mosques back again, because your cause is right and God is on your side."

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/A9RCFZnWGE0

    Then, starting in 1980, "From the Pakistani border, bin Laden raises funds and provides the mujahedeen with logistical and humanitarian aid." So, the Sauds' allegation that the Khobar bombers had been "veterans of the Afghan war" would have meant that they had been foot-soldiers for the U.S.-Saudi operation in Afghanistan. Both the U.S. Government and the Saud family (who own the Saudi Government) hate Shia and especially hate Iran. Hezbollah are Shia, and they are extremely pro-Iran. How likely is it that Hezbollah, anywhere, would have been fighting under the command of Al Qaeda, or of any other fundamentalist-Sunni jihadist organization that calls all Shia "infidels"? So, the Sauds' account of the Khobar Towers bombing is fishy, at best.

    Furthermore, a Google-search for the phrase "Hezbollah in Afghanistan" turns up only "6 results," and all of them say nothing about any "Hezbollah in Afghanistan." No report comes up about such a thing, for any year, or any period. The only countries where Hezbollah was reported to exist were Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. One of the links in that Google search was globally comprehensive for the year 2007, the Center on International Cooperation's "Annual Review of Global Peace Operations -- 2007" . It included reports on wars during that year, in 26 countries, and the chapter for Afghanistan (pages 52-58) doesn't mention Hezbollah even once. However, a search for the phrase "Hezbollah Afghanistan" does bring up "Syria's Other Foreign Fighters: Iran's Afghan and Pakistani Mercenaries" , at the neoconservative (and thus favoring not only the American aristocracy but its allied aristocracies -- especially in Saudi Arabia and Israel) The National Interest, dated 20 November 2015. That article says, "The liwa' fatimiyun (Fatimiyun Brigade) is composed exclusively of Afghans and fights under the auspices of Hezbollah Afghanistan," based in Syria. Other supposed foreign Shiites trying to overthrow Syria's Government are mentioned, as being supposedly "Pakistanis fighting in Syria under the Hezbollah flag." However, if these allegations are true, then those men would be opponents of Syria's secular government, which is headed by the secular Shiite Bashar al-Assad, who is being attacked by fundamentalist Sunnis -- including both ISIS and Al Qaeda there -- who are trying to kill Hezbollah in Syria, who are, in fact, defending Assad. (Such illogical 'historical' accounts as that, are normal in neoconservative publications -- counterfactuality is entirely acceptable to them.) Either that, or else the alleged Shiite Pakistanis who are fighting in Syria to overthrow the Shiite Assad and replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni regime, would be -- not actually members of Hezbollah, but instead -- Shiites from Pakistan who came to Syria in order to help actually not to overthrow the Government but to defend it against its rabidly anti-Shia attackers. That's the opposite of the assumption that The National Interest made, but it conceivably could be the case. A Pew survey scientifically randomly sampled 1,512 Pakistanis, and found that 1,450 of them declared themselves to be "Muslim," which is 96%. It also found that 94% of Pakistanis (of any or no faith) say that religion is "very important" in their lives, and found that 81% of the Muslims said they were "Sunni," 6% said they were "Shiite," and 12% said they were "Just a Muslim." So, only 6% of Pakistanis identify themselves specifically as "Shia." That is such a small percentage of Shiites in Pakistan, as to make unlikely any significant contribution that Pakistanis would be providing to the defense of Syria, which is at least 1,800 miles or 2,900 kilometers, away -- not even in the same general region. But, in any case, that neoconservative magazine's assumptions regarding the entire matter are clearly false.

    Clearly, then, the logical feasibility of the U.S. Government's case against Iran is so tiny as to constitute almost an absolute impossibility of that case being true.

    Now, then, let's consider the specifics of the case

    The great investigative journalist Greg Palast, in his 2003 The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (pages 101-102), wrote:

    True-blue Democrats may want to skip the next paragraphs. If President Bush put the kibosh on investigations of Saudi funding of terror and nuclear bomb programs, this was merely taking a policy of Bill Clinton one step further.

    Following the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, Clinton hunted Osama with a passion -- but a passion circumscribed by the desire to protect the sheikdom sitting atop our oil lifeline. In 1994, a Saudi diplomat defected to the United States with 14,000 pages of documents from the kingdom's sealed file cabinets. This mother lode of intelligence included evidence of plans for the assassination of Saudi opponents living in the West and, tantalizingly, details of the $7 billion the Saudis gave to Saddam Hussein for his nuclear program -- the first attempt to build an Islamic bomb. The Saudi government, according to the defector, Mohammed Al Khilewi, slipped Saddam the nuclear loot during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years when our government still thought Saddam too marvelous for words [because he was trying to slaughter Shiite Iran]. The thought was that he would only use the bomb to vaporize Iranians [which the rulers of both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia -- and of Israel -- would love].

    Clinton granted the Saudi defector asylum, but barred the FBI from looking at the documents. Al Khilewi's New York lawyer, Michael Wildes, told me he was stunned. Wildes handles some of America's most security-sensitive asylum cases. "We said (to the FBI), 'Here, take the documents! Go get some bad guys with them! We'll even pay for the photocopying!" But the agents who came to his office had been ordered not to accept evidence of Saudi criminal activity, even on U.S. soil.

    In 1997, the Canadians caught and extradited to America one of the [Saudi-Government-alleged] Khobar Towers attackers. In 1999, Vernon Jordan's law firm stepped in and -- poof! -- the [Saudi-alleged] killer was shipped back to Saudi Arabia before he could reveal all he knew about Al Qaeda (valuable) and the Saudis (embarrassing). I reviewed but was not permitted to take notes on, the alleged [finally, Palast is getting that right] terrorist's debriefing by the FBI. To my admittedly inexpert eyes, there was enough on Al Qaeda to make him a source on terrorists worth holding on to. Not that he was set free -- he's in one of the kingdom's dungeons [likelier dead soon after arriving back in Saudi Arabia] -- but his info is sealed up with him. The terrorist's extradition was "Clinton's." "Clinton's parting kiss to the Saudis," as one insider put it.

    Another great investigative journalist is Seymour Hersh, who in the 22 October 2001 issue of the New Yorker, headlined "King's Ransom" and he opened:

    Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd. The intercepts depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country's religious rank and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to overthrow it.

    The intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and throughout the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official told me. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys -- it's like the Grand Alliance -- and had a capability for conducting large-scale operations." The Saudi regime, he said, had "gone to the dark side."

    Subsequently, he noted:

    In 1994, Mohammed al-Khilewi, the first secretary at the Saudi Mission to the United Nations, defected and sought political asylum in the United States. He brought with him, according to his New York lawyer, Michael J. Wildes, some fourteen thousand internal government documents depicting the Saudi royal family's corruption, human-rights abuses, and financial support for terrorists.

    He claimed to have evidence that the Saudis had given financial and technical support to Hamas, the extremist Islamic group whose target is Israel. There was a meeting at the lawyer's office with two F.B.I. agents and an Assistant United States Attorney. "We gave them a sampling of the documents and put them on the table," Wildes told me last week. "But the agents refused to accept them." He and his client heard nothing further from federal authorities. Al-Khilewi, who was granted asylum, is now living under cover.

    The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful."

    Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers.

    The New York Times's report , on 15 August 1996, quoted a leading Saudi dissident in London as asserting that, "As far as I know, Prince Nayef is keeping the Americans away from all the details at this point." This report went on: "In a statement responding to the earlier reports of confessions, Prince Nayef said Saudi Arabia would make an announcement as soon as the investigation is completed. His comments were also viewed as refuting earlier suggestions by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, who had said that Saudi investigations might point to an Iranian connection." In other words, at that time (as of August 15th), the U.S. official was suggesting "an Iranian connection" but the Saudi official wasn't -- at least, not yet -- and the expectation was that "confessions" would be providing the decisive 'evidence'. However, these 'confessions', in Saudi cases are typically 'information' extracted under torture, and, where that fails to obtain the 'information' that's desired by the Government, then threats to destroy the person's immediate family are applied; so, the Sauds famously usually do get exactly the 'information' that they want (regardless of whether it's true).

    The Wikipedia article "Khobar Towers bombing" summarizes the 'findings' by the U.S. FBI and courts, and ignores the Sauds' 'investigation(s)', because nothing was ever made public from the Sauds' Government or officials or anyone there, about what they 'found' (other than 'found' by torture). Wikipedia's article, which is based entirely upon the U.S. Government (the first party to broach publicly the possibility of "an Iranian connection") states flatly, right up front, "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)." In common parlance, that's Hezbollah, an "Iranian connection" -- exactly what the U.S. Government wanted.

    Here's what that article asserts regarding the operations of the alleged mastermind:

    In June 2001, an indictment was issued in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia charging the following people with murder, conspiracy, and other charges related to the bombing:[18]

    Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Mughassil

    Al-Mughassil disappeared from the 'news' after the Sauds announced his capture in 2015, but Wikipedia on 6 November 2017 closed its bizarre article about him by saying, without comment, "Al-Mughassil was believed to be living in Iran.[1][2]" That footnote [1] linked to Front Page mag. in 2005, which actually said nothing of the sort ; footnote [2] linked to FDD in 2006, which actually said nothing of the sort . The obvious likeliest explanation for Wikipedia's blatant falsehoods there is Wikipedia's being edited by the CIA , which serves the Sauds, just like the rest of America's federal Government does.

    The Wikipedia article then continued by listing the other alleged defendants:

    In July 2001, Saudi Arabia said that eleven of the people indicted in the US were in custody in Saudi prisons, and were to be tried in Saudi court, as the country refused to extradite any of them to the United States to stand trial.[19] The government has not since made public the outcome of the trial or the whereabouts of the prisoners.

    All six of the named persons there were Shiites in Saudi Arabia. The respective Wikipedia articles on each provide no evidence that any of them was at all involved in the bombing. However, the article on Hani al-Sayegh , who was living in Canada, is extraordinarily honest: it indicates that he said he had had nothing whatsoever to do with any bombings, nor any terrorism at all, and that the U.S. Government tried to get him to confess to something on the basis of which he could be tried and convicted in the U.S., but that he continued to resist all plea-offers, and to maintain that they were seeking to get him to lie, which he would not do. So, since the U.S. would not torture him on U.S. soil, the U.S. deported him "to Saudi Arabia on October 10, 1999 where it was assumed he would be executed upon arrival.[3][12]." But the Saudi regime never announced anything about any of the men they were charging in the Khobar Towers bombing.

    The FBI issued charges against al-Sayegh and 12 others (all allegedly Hezbollah) on 21 June 2001 , for the bombing; and, since that time, the only publication of their names has been in regards to the mere presumption that they were guilty. Their indictments in the U.S. (without evidence), and (since the Saudi Government wouldn't say anything about them -- not even whether they were in prison or free there) the charge in U.S. courts that Iran had helped them to do it, were 100% based upon that 'evidence'. Therefore, Iran was declared guilty in U.S. courts, and fined, again , and again , over $500 million in all, without any reliable evidence, at all, that Iran had anything to do with the Khobar Towers bombing. And, not a cent of those fines was paid; but the U.S. Government's purpose was served nonetheless: getting Iran's 'guilt' onto the official record, such that Wikipedia, for example could say "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)."

    The Wikipedia article on the Khobar Towers bombing closed, however, by saying:

    William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25]

    On December 22, 2006, federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran and Hezbollah were responsible for the attack, stating that the leading experts on Hezbollah presented "overwhelming" evidence of the group's involvement and that six captured Hezbollah members detailed the role of Iranian officials in providing money, plans, and maps.[4] This decision was reached as a default judgment, however, in which the Iranian government was not represented in court, and had no opportunity to challenge the allegations.

    People who trust the U.S. Government's honesty will interpret the outcome as displaying legal and judicial incompetency, not as displaying political and propagandistic competency.

    William Perry announced his opinion only after the 2006 court 'finding' of Iran's 'guilt' in the case. The UPI article on this opened and closed as follows:

    Perry: U.S. eyed Iran attack after bombing

    Published: June 6, 2007 at 4:25 PM

    WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- A former U.S. defense secretary says he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base.

    Former Defense Secretary William Perry said he had a contingency plan to attack Iran if the link had been proven, but evidence was not to either his nor President Bill Clinton's satisfaction.

    The attack would have struck "at a number of their military facilities that would have weakened -- substantially weakened ... the Iranian navy and air force," he said in New York Tuesday during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

    "I believe that the Khobar Tower bombing was probably masterminded by Osama bin Laden," Perry said. "I can't be sure of that, but in retrospect, that's what I believe. At the time, he was not a suspect. At the time ... all of the evidence was pointing to Iran."

    He said al-Qaida did not emerge as a major threat until Clinton's second term.

    "We probably should have been more concerned about it at the time than we were but in the first term we did not see Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a major factor, or one that we were concerned with," he said.

    In 2001, the U.S. Justice Department announced a 46-count indictment against 13 Saudis and one Lebanese man in the bombing. All were allegedly connected to Hezbollah, a terrorist group the United States believes is linked to Iran.

    Perry said the FBI strongly believed at the time the bombing was ordered by Iran, but Saudi officials tried to discourage that theory.

    "They feared what action we would take. They rightly feared it. In fact, I had a contingency plan for a strike on Iran, if it had been if it had been clearly established. But it was never clearly established, and so we never did that," Perry said.

    So, although Wikipedia started by alleging "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)" -- and in plain language, that's Hezbollah -- it ended by kaboshing that very theory of the case, which the Wikipedia article had been 'documenting' (with bad logic and some false 'facts').

    Subsequently, the fine investigative journalist Gareth Porter explained how Perry had come to think that Iran and Hezbollah had been the culprit. Perry had trusted the head of the FBI, Louis Freeh. Perry didn't know that, behind the scenes, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (who was his family's U.S. Ambassador) had told Freeh that Iran and Hezbollah did it. Furthermore, the Sauds had actually blocked the FBI's own investigators from having access to the site or to any of the evidence (other than by providing Freeh himself access to the torture-extracted 'confessions'). Initially, in fact, the Sauds even started bulldozing the site.

    The first part of Porter's five-part report was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 1: Al Qaeda Excluded from the Suspects List" . It said: "The Saudi bulldozing stopped only after Scott Erskine, the supervisory FBI special agent for international terrorism investigations, threatened that Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who happened to be in Saudi Arabia when the bomb exploded, would intervene personally on the matter." It said there was: "a systematic effort by the Saudis to obstruct any U.S. investigation of the bombing and to deceive the United States about who was responsible for the bombing. The Saudi regime steered the FBI investigation toward Iran and its Saudi Shi'a allies with the apparent intention of keeping U.S. officials away from a trail of evidence that would have led to Osama bin Laden and a complex set of ties between the regime and the Saudi terrorist organiser."

    The second part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 2: Saudi Account of Khobar Bore Telltale Signs of Fraud" .

    The third part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 3: U.S. Officials Leaked a False Story Blaming Iran" .

    The fourth part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 4: FBI Ignored Compelling Evidence of bin Laden Role" . It noted that, " In October 1996, after having issued yet another fatwa calling on Muslims to drive U.S. soldiers out of the Kingdom, bin Laden was quoted in al Quds al Arabi, the Palestinian daily published in London, as saying, 'The crusader army was shattered when we bombed Khobar.'"

    The fifth part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 5: Freeh Became "Defence Lawyer" for Saudis on Khobar" . This part had the most hair-raising details:

    The key to the success of the Saudi deception was FBI director Louis Freeh, who took personal charge of the FBI investigation, letting it be known within the Bureau that he was the "case officer" for the probe, according to former FBI officials. Freeh allowed Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to convince him that Iran was involved in the bombing, and that President Bill Clinton, for whom he had formed a visceral dislike, "had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers," as Freeh wrote in his memoirs.

    The Khobar Towers investigation soon became Freeh's vendetta against Clinton. "Freeh was pursuing this for his own personal agenda," says former FBI agent Jack Cloonan.

    A former high-ranking FBI official recalls that Freeh "was always meeting with Bandar". And many of the meetings were not in Freeh's office but at Bandar's 38-room home in McLean, Virginia. Meanwhile, the Saudis were refusing the most basic FBI requests for cooperation. Freeh quickly made Iranian and Saudi Shi'a responsibility for the bombing the official premise of the investigation, excluding from the inquiry the hypothesis that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organisation had carried out the Khobar Towers bombing.

    The CIA's bin Laden unit, which had only been established in early 1996, was also excluded by CIA leadership from that Agency's work on the bombing.

    Finally, in order to bring his exhaustive investigation up-to-date, Porter headlined on 1 September 2015, "Who Bombed Khobar Towers? Anatomy of a Crooked Terrorism Investigation" . Here's one particularly forceful portion of it:

    In order to build a legal case against Iran and Shi'a Saudis, Freeh had to get access to the Shi'a detainees who had confessed. But the Saudis never agreed to allow FBI officials to interview them. In early November 1998, Freeh sent an FBI team to observe Saudi secret police officials asking eight Shi'a detainees the FBI's questions from behind a one-way mirror at the Riyadh detention center.

    By then Saudi secret police had already had two and half years to coach the detainees on what to say, under the threat of more torture. But Freeh didn't care. "For Louis, if they would let us in the room, that was the important thing," a senior FBI official involved in the Khobar investigation told me. "We would have gone over there and gotten the answers even if they had been propped up."

    But the Justice Department refused to go ahead with an indictment based on the information the FBI team brought back. Department lawyers knew the Shi'a detainees had been subject to torture, so they have ruled that the confessions were not valid.

    In other words: the head of the FBI believed torture-extracted 'confessions' as if such would meet U.S. rules of evidence -- which they don't. And coaching of witnesses is likewise prohibited -- under U.S. laws.

    On 30 May 2013, The Washingtonian headlined "Forged Under Fire -- Bob Mueller and Jim Comey's Unusual Friendship" and Garrett M. Graff reported:

    Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case to Comey.

    When he finally did so, Mueller called Comey with a warning: "Wilma Lewis is going to be so pissed." Indeed, Lewis blasted the decision, as well as both Freeh and Mueller personally, in a press release, saying the move was "ill-conceived and ill-considered." But Freeh's gambit paid off.

    Within weeks, Comey had pulled together the indictment. During a National Security Council briefing at the White House, under the watchful gaze of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Comey presented overwhelming evidence of Iran's involvement.

    On the eve of the expiration of the statute of limitations, fourteen individuals were indicted for the attack. Freeh, who stepped down the next day, said the indictment was "a major step."

    So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence', then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller are a team - a team that serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public.

    Our continuing war against Iran is due entirely to their crucial assistance. The Deep State appoints such individuals.

    * * *

    CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment, I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and free-of-charge basis to publish. Since none of them will pay me for publishing it, I shall be happy if any publish it without charge, even small 'alternative news' sites online, because - and especially if a mainstream newsmedium relents and decides to publish it - then perhaps the embargo against the truth of such important matters being published in the United States and its vassal nations, will come to be broken , and the 'news'media in America and in those other countries, might then terminate being actually the U.S-regime's propaganda-media, and might finally begin to pay penance for their all having helped the U.S. Government to deceive the American (and allied-nations') public into supporting the regime's entirely lie-based invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, of Iraq in 2003, of Libya in 2012, of Syria since 2012, of U.S. coups elsewhere (such as in Ukraine ), and, now, potentially repeating it yet again with invasions or coups against Iran or other countries that the U.S. elite want to grab and add to their growing U.S. empire.

    If Iran becomes invaded, or another U.S. coup becomes perpetrated there (such as in 1953 ), then perhaps Russia's only realistic response -- as being the ultimate U.S. target -- will be a blitz nuclear attack to destroy the United States, in recognition of the U.S. Government's fanatical reach to control a total global empire -- total global strangulation of freedom and of peace, everywhere. After all, if Russia waits till after a U.S. lie-based invasion of Iran, then it will be simply waiting for a blitz nuclear attack by the U.S. and its NATO alliance against Russia itself, which would be even worse for the world than Russia's striking first -- though the world would end, either way. The U.S. Government now seems to be an out-of-control spreading cancer, a terminal threat to the world in every regard. It's already recognized throughout the world as being "the greatest threat to peace in the world today" . And its 'news'media have helped to keep it that way.

    Here is the list of 39 publications that this article had been submitted to as an exclusive (and, of course, it's now being submitted to them, too, yet again, but this time on a non-exclusive, non-fee, basis, along with being submitted to all the rest of the regime's press, including broadcast media):

    McClatchy newspapers, New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Harper's, TIME, The New Republic, Foreign Policy, Mother Jones, The Nation, Progressive, National Review, New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Business Week, Forbes, Politico, thedailybeast, huffingtonpost, slate, bloomberg, businessinsider, newsweek, theintercept, breitbart, alternet, newsbud, spiked-online, vice, mintpressnews, truthdig, truth-out, Independent, Guardian, Daily Mail, Spectator, London Review of Books, New Statesman, Spiegel.

    * * *

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

    [Nov 11, 2017] Is Hillary Just the "Fall Guy" for the Intel Agencies and their Moneybags Bosses by Mike Whitney

    See Wikipedia article CIA influence on public opinion . The role on Brennan probably deserves a special prosecutor and/or a Congressional commettee similar to Church Committee
    The question arise: "Was hacking DNC another CIA false flag operation with the specific goal to poison US-Russian relations and using Hillary Clinton as a patsy?"
    According fo church committee report: "Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are "accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover. [7] "
    "Journalist Carl Bernstein , writing in an October 1977 article in the magazine Rolling Stone , claims that the Church Committee report "covered up" CIA relations with news media, and names a number of journalists whom he says worked with the CIA [10] Like the Church Committee report, however, Bernstein does not refer to any Operation Mockingbird."
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow. ..."
    "... Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. ..."
    "... the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. ..."
    "... More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved ..."
    "... The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process. ..."
    "... The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. ..."
    "... The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente. ..."
    "... Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian." ..."
    "... Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale. ..."
    "... Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain. ..."
    "... This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true. ..."
    "... On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA. ..."
    "... It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? ..."
    "... It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America. ..."
    "... So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state. ..."
    Nov 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public about her Campaign's role in producing the report.

    Following the article's publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing with the crisis.

    "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow.

    The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here's a little background from Joe Lauria's "must read" article "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate":

    " the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign.

    More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved .

    If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all." (Consortium News)

    So, were "the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump"? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes, the FBI did in fact use the "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain at least one FISA warrant. This is from The Hill:

    "The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump's campaign associates to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter Page, CNN reports.

    FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation told CNN." ("FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant to monitor ex-aide: report", The Hill)

    The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process.

    The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in the Washington Post:

    "The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email accounts ..

    Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter." ("FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier", Washington Post)

    The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente.

    It's also worth noting , that Steele's earliest report implausibly alleges that the "Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5 years." (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow. (All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele's first report focused on corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.

    Why?

    It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had created. In other words, his report was a way of "passing the buck".

    Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian."

    The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:

    "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

    The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.

    The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies " ("Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump", Washington Post)

    What's remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War, where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn't require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources who have every reason to mislead the public. Here's an excerpt from Joe Lauria's article that sums it up perfectly:

    "The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.

    Think about that for a minute .

    In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats.

    If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims." ("The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate", Consortium News)

    Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.

    As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn't Clinton's decision to gather more information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are they?

    According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:

    November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the presidential campaign.

    Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.

    Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a meeting at the latter's office.

    Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech executive used his companies to hack into the DNC's email systems. The executive, Aleksej Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017. He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.

    Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on some of the allegations made in the dossier.

    Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)

    John McCain? Is that who we're talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?

    Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain -- who has expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate -- would hire a mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia, discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?

    Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he wanted the final draft to say? It certainly seems probable. And here's something else to mull over. This is from the Business Insider:

    Steele gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier's allegations in January.

    Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality", Business Insider)

    This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.

    On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA.

    Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?

    Not likely. It's more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have grave impact on Washington's imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?

    Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and boldly stated:

    BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals."

    It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? Here's a clip from the Washington Times:

    "It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians

    But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI director James B. Comey." (The Washington Times)

    It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America.

    So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state.

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    Highly recommended!
    Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
    One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
    In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
    Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
    Notable quotes:
    "... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
    "... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
    "... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
    "... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
    "... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
    "... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
    "... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
    "... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
    "... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
    "... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    "... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
    "... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
    "... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
    "... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
    "... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
    "... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
    "... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
    "... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
    "... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
    "... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
    "... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
    "... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
    "... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
    "... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
    "... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
    "... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
    "... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
    "... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
    "... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
    "... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
    "... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
    "... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
    Nov 08, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent, reports Robert Parry.

    The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as "useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."

    Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail: Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."

    The two subheads read: " Shipping Firm Links Commerce Chief to Putin 'Cronies' " and " Millions in Facebook Shares Rooted in Russian Cash ." The latter story, which meshes nicely with the current U.S. political pressure on Facebook and Twitter to get in line behind the New Cold War against Russia, cites investments by Russian Yuri Milner that date back to the start of the decade.

    Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."

    The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda."

    We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.

    Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."

    In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.

    Pressing the Tech Companies

    Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017. Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.

    Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."

    Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."

    The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm." But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto Twitter through a Moscow hotel.

    Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet. It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.

    Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were traced back to this organization was not made clear.

    And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users, which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.

    The Trouble with 'Trolling'

    While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.

    Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption, or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.

    As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators. In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.

    The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists, psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.

    The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications."

    Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

    It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of the story to the outside world.

    During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then, the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.

    Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.

    Swinging the Social Media Club

    The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which taught activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.

    A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.

    While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger – and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise. In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.

    One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without fear of beheading.

    Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.

    The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense" group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was awarded the short-documentary Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.

    Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own medicine.

    After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."

    However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.

    The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump – although no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia "hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies any meddling.

    Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy. The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

    A Manchurian Candidate?

    Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.

    Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something, Facebook reported $100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this very large lake after Clinton had already lost.

    So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).

    The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could have reached billions of people.

    Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.

    Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference in American elections and policymaking.

    For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history only gained The New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier volumes of evidence as "rumors."

    In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially doom Carter's reelection hopes.

    There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.

    However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme, was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."

    Israeli Influence

    And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians.

    If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress and count how often Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

    So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?

    Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised, were treated largely as non-stories.

    Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now – with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?

    The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.

    After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.

    Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.

    The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons.

    A Smokescreen for Repression

    There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen for clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."

    The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda."

    The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

    As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.

    I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political ad criticizing New York City.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that calls itself America.

    When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that, that is enough said.

    Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.

    One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions. The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.

    The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted "discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."

    The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.

    Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/03/pers-n03.html

    Joe Tedesky , November 7, 2017 at 12:32 am

    Thanks for the informative link Danny.

    Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.

    Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911 one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed, and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.

    All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.

    Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.

    Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger! Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping fascism have sure got it backward.

    Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg -- to your two names.

    Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago.

    It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.

    Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
    https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
    While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

    mike k , November 6, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real intention.

    Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    Great essay.

    But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed by the neocons.

    But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT, the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake – something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart" and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart" Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's seemingly impossible victory.

    Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.

    Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the last one?

    I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry points out here yet again.

    As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.

    Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with me as well.

    Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?

    The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.

    Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm

    I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate.

    Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences: that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.

    Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our political stage in the USA is a madhouse.

    Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm

    These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all.

    Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems, they could get in trouble even more.

    I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely abhorrent, in my view.

    Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.

    occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am

    Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.

    In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998). Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller Investigations.

    Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism. Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his sterling reputation for me.

    Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?

    anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.

    Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm

    It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine.

    At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order.

    So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious, the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution, and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going to die in the fifties.

    Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    Truman started it. And he used it very well.

    THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
    By Richard M. Freeland

    This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes -- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.

    The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.

    https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/richard-m-freeland/the-truman-doctrine-and-origins-of-mccarthyism/

    Howard Mettee , November 6, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Bob,

    You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era, when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:

    Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
    :
    (1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
    (2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded FSS agent) in NYC.
    (3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
    (4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower gate.
    (4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable of stallions. .
    (5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
    (6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
    (7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
    (8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass in Dallas, TX..
    (9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
    (10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!

    Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm

    Howard,

    I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.

    David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.

    David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm

    I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.

    Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm

    David G –

    They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries".

    It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology. Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!

    Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.

    I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.

    Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way

    Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact "last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:

    http://fortune.com/2016/09/13/facebook-twitter-join-first-draft-coalition/

    Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.

    In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

    In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth and facts is called "verification".

    The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations' zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.

    Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    The Russia-gate "witch-hunt" has graduated from McCarthyism to full Monty Pythonism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

    Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:41 pm

    You get the gold star for best comment today.

    Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US plan to dismember the Syrian state.

    With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

    South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

    Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

    Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

    "Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

    Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

    "The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

    "Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

    "Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

    "The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

    "It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

    "Conclusions

    "The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

    "Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

    "While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

    Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
    https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

    Realist , November 6, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law (Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.

    From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings." Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within its borders.

    In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?

    I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?" President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening day of the movie.

    Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.

    Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).

    Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States

    But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive, this is completely absurd.

    McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia linked", they have become right-wing extremists.

    Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    "Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."

    Yes, very well organized.
    In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine. The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead, Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply, to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message of the film.
    No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos to this minister for screening the film.

    http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-film-sparks-protest-in-marblehead/article_0b075cbc-c2ae-5d46-916a-24eed79d30cd.html

    http://cdn.field59.com/SALEMNEWS/ebb60114f782c4213f068bf0a39a4a46451ed871_fl9-360p.mp4

    Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:03 am

    The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016) examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD7mOyfclIk

    This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's favor.

    Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts, and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.

    Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.

    The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly right-wing policies.

    Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am

    Abe –

    The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.

    Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.

    As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre, she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just a ploy in the scam.

    Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    "The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."

    And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.

    Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his first term.
    How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.

    Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)

    Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)

    Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".

    Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:

    "As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"

    CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup Poll dropped and was never to rise again.

    Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm

    Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the 50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.

    geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am

    I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow I didn't get to it.

    john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am

    So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with you simply by calling them the enemy.

    Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am

    John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner, mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared on this thread.
    Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University, and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held in December in Silicon Valley.

    john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever. If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are due for rendition anytime now!! LOL

    Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    Hi John,
    Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.

    My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.

    The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)

    Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm

    Maybe some technical problem on the site.

    Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before hitting the "post comment" button.

    In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.

    K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am

    I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting. Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing. The media is inept. Very bizarre times.

    Patricia Schaefer , November 7, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.

    Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.

    To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking "What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.

    If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal. He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.

    That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was doing!

    Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?

    So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she lost.

    Gary , November 7, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes, illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with' or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.

    Realist , November 7, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    Should this give us hope? https://sputniknews.com/us/201711071058899018-trump-cia-meet-whistleblower-russian-hacking/ Trump ordered Pompeo to meet with Binney of VIPS re "Russian hacking." Is it time for the absurd Russia-gate narrative to finally be publicly deconstructed? Or is that asking too much?

    Skip Scott , November 8, 2017 at 9:04 am

    I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo, Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.

    Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least. The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in decline for four decades or so now.

    From Robert Parry's article:

    "The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

    Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.

    Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME and many countries in Africa.

    Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.

    As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era. It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?

    Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?

    CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!

    I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would make money for the Media.

    The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.

    This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.

    The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential election.

    Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations who would profit from a new Cold War.

    Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.

    CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm

    Things not talked about:

    1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.

    The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again) in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.

    Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.

    It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.

    It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under the present administration.

    It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders who will pave the path forward to a better future.

    Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power structure and conspires to deceive us all.

    Jessica K , November 8, 2017 at 9:43 am

    Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others (but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy, has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals, political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.

    It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere. I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because "Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".

    Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being pulled on the sheeple.

    Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly as the moderator will delete it within the hour.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/a-timeline-of-the-trump-russia-scandal-w511067

    [Nov 08, 2017] Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about alternative versions involving CIA as the main culprit. This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth

    Arlen Specter - Wikipedia Arlen Specter (February 12, 1930 – October 14, 2012) was an American lawyer and politician who served as United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter was a Democrat from 1951 to 1965,[1][2][3] then a Republican from 1965 until 2009, when he switched back to the Democratic Party. First elected in 1980, he represented his state in the Senate for 30 years.
    Cyril Wecht - Wikipedia Cyril Harrison Wecht (born March 20, 1931) is an American forensic pathologist. He has been a consultant in numerous high-profile cases, but is perhaps best known for his criticism of the Warren Commission's findings concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy. See books: Into EVIDENCE: Truth, Lies and Unresolved Mysteries in the Murder of JFK; November 22, 1963: A Reference Guide to the JFK Assassination
    Notable quotes:
    "... "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory. ..."
    "... (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/ ..."
    Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    anon, Disclaimer September 6, 2016 at 2:10 am GMT

    deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.

    one example: book opens:

    "Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them. This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission, but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain, they have given up ever learning the truth. "

    At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts, has not given up. Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's still at it. In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,

    "about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention. People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.

    Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy aide, delivered a speech. The center's coordinator, Karen Albert, said he was looking forward to defending his conclusion on the 50th anniversary. " http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/5017529-74/wecht-commission-specter

    Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices against and continue to do so.

    That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.

    (Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel. http://israellobby.org/numec/

    [Nov 08, 2017] Harvey Weinstein's Stasi by Rod Dreher

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps men and women who enter into service in a national military or intelligence agency should be required to sign a life-time oath NOT to accept employment in any investigative or paramilitary outfit in the private sector, enforceable by a life prison sentence? ..."
    "... The two are by and large antithetical. Now the weakness of socialism, to date, is that without a sense of community and ethics, it looks an awful lot like monopoly capitalism. Fidel Castro understood that, but his error was thinking he could inculcate community and ethics by decree (and if necessary force). ..."
    "... There are all kinds of reasons why Harvey W. was not outed earlier, some having to do with the culture at large, some having to do with the extreme insecurity of anyone in show business. But I am a little uneasy with the frenzy of accusations across the country that have followed. Some have got to be opportunistic rather than real. ..."
    "... Anybody who goes to the show right now, knowing what we know or will eventually discover – Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg – is simply subsidizing evil. ..."
    "... Anybody who's lived in Hollywood, knows that the lure of fame is such that any compromise will be acceded to as the cost of obtaining it. Of course, those who prostituted themselves and violated their consciences, won't mind getting revenge if the opportunity someday arises. ..."
    "... What David Boies did was just about the worse thing a lawyer can do which is to betray a client. Not even a former client, a current one, and not by accident either. This was intentional betrayal made with a sober mind. This Harvey guy is so important to him that Boies has basically thrown away his integrity, hopefully his law license, and his reputation forever just to stop some rumors. ..."
    "... The Mossad (or "ex-Mossad") angle brings in the hint of state action on behalf of individuals. Groups like that one do not work for everyone, and how do we know if those agents really are "ex-" or not. ..."
    Nov 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Here's more reporting by Ronan Farrow that suggests a good reason why people were afraid to speak out about Harvey Weinstein's sexual assaults:

    In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world's largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives "highly experienced and trained in Israel's elite military and governmental intelligence units," according to its literature.

    Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women's-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.

    The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker . Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies "target," or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally. He also enlisted former employees from his film enterprises to join in the effort, collecting names and placing calls that, according to some sources who received them, felt intimidating.

    Weinstein's lawyer, the cream-of-the-croppy David Boies, knew a lot about this. Farrow also reports about how Weinstein allegedly conspired with the owner of the National Enquirer to dig up dirt on those who accused him.

    Read the whole thing.

    Harvey Weinstein is a monster. After reading this piece, it is easier to understand why people stayed quiet about his behavior.

    Centralist ,, November 7, 2017 at 10:22 am

    The sins of capitalism without ethics and a man without ethics, in perfect harmony.

    The joke that this brings to mind is "What is the worst thing for capitalism?" "A pure capitalist". To have a good capitalist system you need sense of community and ethics to guide them. The sense of only "I" is the greatest cause of such abuse. Sadly though this is more in line with a return to old power politics of city states that use to dominate the Italy, Greece, and the Mideast. While often apart of larger empires with their own security forces individual wealth magnates and nobles had their own private forces to keep the rift raft in check because of legal grey area and coupled with official leadership to weak or to in the pocket of the rich to do anything about it.

    The further forward we go, the more we go back. I think Mr. Dreher and interesting idea for a novel from you would be a Benedict Option Society in a cyberpunk post nation-state world. Just an idea.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:43 am
    The monstrosity is hardly unique to Weinstein. After all, Black Cube must have quite a few other well-heeled clients with similar needs or it wouldn't be in business on several continents. That seems to be more of a threat to peace and freedom and democracy and liberty and public morality than one man's particular sins, or his desires to cover them up.

    Perhaps men and women who enter into service in a national military or intelligence agency should be required to sign a life-time oath NOT to accept employment in any investigative or paramilitary outfit in the private sector, enforceable by a life prison sentence?

    To have a good capitalist system you need sense of community and ethics to guide them.

    The two are by and large antithetical. Now the weakness of socialism, to date, is that without a sense of community and ethics, it looks an awful lot like monopoly capitalism. Fidel Castro understood that, but his error was thinking he could inculcate community and ethics by decree (and if necessary force).

    TR , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:53 am
    I suggest opening the TAC link to Joseph Epstein's take-down of Leon Wieseltier in the Weekly Standard. A masterpiece.

    There are all kinds of reasons why Harvey W. was not outed earlier, some having to do with the culture at large, some having to do with the extreme insecurity of anyone in show business. But I am a little uneasy with the frenzy of accusations across the country that have followed. Some have got to be opportunistic rather than real.

    For those interested in tales of the cssting couch of old, check out the life of Harry Cohn, the longtime head of Columbia Pictures.

    Potato , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:05 am
    I am concerned about the part in all this played by attorney David Boies, and I think the Bar should initiate an investigation into his involvement. This falls seriously short of the ethical behavior we expect of people who are, after all, officers of the Court.

    I also believe that any claim of attorney-client privilege as to these materials, in a situation where Boies is claiming that he and his firm did not direct the investigative agencies involved and did not know much about their findings, is farcical, and would never have held up in court. Assuming that he is telling the truth about this ignorance of his, Mr. Boies should surely have known that a claim of privilege would not hold up, and should so have advised his client at the beginning of this entire transaction.

    Or, alternatively, he is lying his head off about how much he knew, which is worse.

    David Boies is now very understandably backing quickly away from this whole situation, but I believe that it may be too late for him to be in the clear.

    One wonders, or I do, why Mr. Boies consented to be involved in the first place. Surely he personally and his firm both have plenty of money, so financial desperation cannot play a part. Is a man in his position so blinded by Fame and Fortune that his good judgment was compromised to this degree? He seems to be at least marginally good, at this late date, at naming all the reasons this was a bad idea for him. One wonders why all this did not occur to him sooner.

    Another possibility is that Weinstein or someone closely connected to Weinstein "has the goods" on Mr. Boies, and was able to in effect blackmail him. Weinstein and his associates seem uncommonly good at that.

    Or, I wonder, is it just One Of Those Things? You do things, then you do something that is a tiny bit questionable (but hugely profitable), and then the next thing is a tiny bit more questionable until, without really thinking about it, you find yourself in the position David Boies is now in, or worse, in commission of a felony. This kind of thing happens all the time, sadly, when someone like Boies has a moral compass which is a bit out of adjustment.

    Jason , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:23 am
    Anybody who goes to the show right now, knowing what we know or will eventually discover – Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg – is simply subsidizing evil.
    charles cosimano , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:43 am
    Seems he did everything right except the execution. He never would have made it in the mafia.
    Sam M , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:54 am
    "After reading this piece, it is easier to understand why people stayed quiet about his behavior."

    But also easier to believe that, "I didn't know."

    This matters. It's one thing for a young aspiring starlet getting off a bus in Hollywood with $20 in her pocket to fall in line. But it's quite another for multi-millionaire power brokers who worked with Weinstein to sit back and watch him abuse one such aspiring starlet after another for 20 years.

    There were plenty of producers and actors and directors who knew plenty and never raised a finger, despite having the financial and professional wherewithal to take that risk.

    Captain P , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:07 pm
    Potato

    > I am concerned about the part in all this played by attorney David Boies, and I think the Bar should initiate an investigation into his involvement. This falls seriously short of the ethical behavior we expect of people who are, after all, officers of the Court.

    Sounds like the NYT is going to be suing Boies for his unethical behavior:

    "We learned today that the law firm of Boies Schiller and Flexner secretly worked to stop our reporting on Harvey Weinstein at the same time as the firm's lawyers were representing us in other matters," Eileen Murphy, a New York Times spokesperson, told TheWrap.

    "We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe," she continued. "It is inexcusable, and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies."

    https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-david-boies-harvey-weinstein/

    Fran Macadam , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:08 pm
    Anybody who's lived in Hollywood, knows that the lure of fame is such that any compromise will be acceded to as the cost of obtaining it. Of course, those who prostituted themselves and violated their consciences, won't mind getting revenge if the opportunity someday arises.

    And whatever happens on casting couches, is simply the behind the scenes sideplay of the same things acted out onscreen.

    In a way, it's consensual if that is the bargain you agreed with yourself to make to get what you wanted.

    We've already determined what you are, now we're just negotiating about the price.

    theMann , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm
    Weinstein is stone cold via RICO on extortion, multiple times. Any prosecutor worth his salt (very few of them actually, but another subject) can and should start rolling out the counts. All the people covering up for him, launch discovery and see just how far their accessory goes, also prosecutable under RICO.

    hum .Hollywood. Lets all hold our breath until it happens.

    ludo , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:47 pm
    At least he didn't have anybody disappeared, unlike routinely happens in Mexico and so many other increasingly neo-medieval places in the world, so credit for that.
    pitchfork , says: November 7, 2017 at 2:02 pm
    "The monstrosity is hardly unique to Weinstein. After all, Black Cube must have quite a few other well-heeled clients with similar needs or it wouldn't be in business on several continents. That seems to be more of a threat to peace and freedom and democracy and liberty and public morality than one man's particular sins, or his desires to cover them up."

    Indeed. And a common tactic seems to be to run everything through a law firm, thereby putting it all under attorney-client privilege. The cyber-security team that Bank of America hired to take down Glenn Greenwald a few years back was apparently organized through Hunton and Williams. At the DOJ's suggestion, no less.

    https://wikileaks.org/hbgary-emails/emailid/13730

    And this kind of thing isn't confined to media moguls and banks, either. When I was a PhD student I was involved in organizing against certain development plans at my university. On one of the emails between myself, other organizers, and the university vice president, the VP had copied some university employees that had nothing apparent to do with the issue we were protesting. When I researched who _they_ were, one of them had just been hired away from Booz Allen Hamilton. Later on, after the protests were over (we lost, by the way), an insider in the administration told me directly, in great detail, that I, my wife, and other organizers had been carefully watched the whole time. Lucky for me, I'm a good boy with a squeaky clean past, but that's how this university VP rolled.

    Lllurker , says: November 7, 2017 at 2:19 pm
    Shades of Roger Ailes. One more story that shows how ignorant some of us who live out our lives in flyover country can be about this sort of thing. Until the Roger Ailes thing broke I pretty much assumed that hiring "security firms" of this nature was something that just took place in spy novels and westerns.

    I wonder if these hired guns who stalk and intimidate people for a living are ever convicted of crimes like stalking and intimidating.

    Countme-a-Demon , says: November 7, 2017 at 2:20 pm
    Odd that the title of the article reads "Harvey Weinstein's Stasi", when "Harvey Weinstein's Mossad" was right there for the picking. Is Mossad a different kind of Stasi? Those agents should be arrested and charged as well. Then deported, if ICE isn't too overworked.
    JCM , says: November 7, 2017 at 3:20 pm
    I wonder why Mr. Weinstein didn't save himself the trouble and hooked himself up with A-list call girls. I can't imagine that a sense of morality would have kept him from consorting with prostitutes. He would have saved himself a word of trouble and money if he had been inclined to pay for services from the outset. Perhaps, he felt the need to denigrate the women that he so callously approached. Not a nice man, this Mr. Weinstein.
    Potato , says: November 7, 2017 at 3:49 pm
    a common tactic seems to be to run everything through a law firm, thereby putting it all under attorney-client privilege.

    Allegedly. Actually you have to do more than just get a lawyer involved somehow, or other in some capacity or other, to invoke the privilege. I haven't researched this transaction specifically, but it sounds to me like the assertion of privilege in this Weinstein business would have had more holes in it than a colander.

    Sounds like the NYT is going to be suing Boies for his unethical behavior:

    "We learned today that the law firm of Boies Schiller and Flexner secretly worked to stop our reporting on Harvey Weinstein at the same time as the firm's lawyers were representing us in other matters," Eileen Murphy, a New York Times spokesperson, told TheWrap. "We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe," she continued. "It is inexcusable, and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies."

    Good, they have it coming. Among everything else that was wrong with it, this business was a very serious conflict of interest, and worse, Boies was well aware of the conflict at the time. (Actually the Bar will whap you good for conflicts of interest whether you were aware of them or not, taking the position that attorneys are supposed to keep track of such things. But doing it knowingly is worse.)

    More cause for head-shaking. Why why why did David Boies consent to become involved?? What did these people have to threaten him with, if that's what happened?

    xx

    As an irrelevancy, may I say yet again that Harvey Weinstein is one of the most physically unattractive men I have ever seen or seen pictures of. To call him a "pig" is an insult to pigs everywhere.

    Dan Green , says: November 7, 2017 at 4:35 pm
    Hooray for Hollywood, is anybody really surprised what goes on in that fantasy world?
    cka2nd , says: November 7, 2017 at 4:38 pm
    TR "But I am a little uneasy with the frenzy of accusations across the country that have followed. Some have got to be opportunistic rather than real."

    I agree, some are. Corey Haim's mom is calling out Corey Feldman for trying to raise a millions of dollars for some documentary instead of just naming the names of those he claims abused him and her son, who she says was abused by just one person, not the hordes Feldman alleges.

    By the way, I'm with Luke and Conewago on being careful about using the dehumanizing term "monster."

    Our Thing , says: November 7, 2017 at 8:42 pm
    "After all, Black Cube must have quite a few other well-heeled clients with similar needs or it wouldn't be in business on several continents. "

    Anybody who hires a company called "Black Cube" deserves whatever bad things happen to them. And what stupid ex-Mossad hack chose the name? I can't imagine one better calculated to call forth an all-out international investigation. I mean, why not just call it SPECTRE and have done with it?

    Philly guy , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:29 pm
    Am pretty sure Uncle Chuckie said something about Weinstein's henchmen on a previous thread. In 2017 this must be outsourced i.e. Black cube. The words "private" and "security" when used together, make me cringe.
    Ben H , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:41 pm
    This story just gets more and more extraordinary.
    Elijah , says: November 8, 2017 at 7:33 am
    "Why why why did David Boies consent to become involved?? What did these people have to threaten him with, if that's what happened?"

    You really have to wonder if the lure of Weinstein's fund-raising prowess was that strong or if he was investigating and blackmailing hundreds of people all over the nation.

    The more you read about this wretched Weinstein, the less outlandish the conspiracy theories sound.

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

    Highly recommended!
    These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise. What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism, where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible. ..."
    "... Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of as "literature." ..."
    "... These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level. ..."
    "... Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major corporation. ..."
    "... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
    Nov 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    On November 30, 2016, presumably right at the stroke of midnight, Google Inc. unpersoned CounterPunch. They didn't send out a press release or anything. They just quietly removed it from the Google News aggregator. Not very many people noticed. This happened just as the "fake news" hysteria was being unleashed by the corporate media, right around the time The Washington Post ran this neo-McCarthyite smear piece vicariously accusing CounterPunch, and a number of other publications, of being "peddlers of Russian propaganda." As I'm sure you'll recall, that astounding piece of "journalism" (which The Post was promptly forced to disavow with an absurd disclaimer but has refused to retract) was based on the claims of an anonymous website apparently staffed by a couple of teenagers and a formerly rabidly anti-Communist, now rabidly anti-Putin think tank. Little did most people know at the time that these were just the opening salvos in what has turned out to be an all-out crackdown on any and all forms of vocal opposition to the global corporate ruling classes and their attempts to quash the ongoing nationalist backlash against their neoliberal agenda.

    Almost a year later, things are much clearer. If you haven't been following this story closely, and you care at all about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and that kind of stuff, you may want to take an hour or two and catch up a bit on what's been happening. I offered a few examples of some of the measures governments and corporations have been taking to stifle expressions of dissent in my latest piece in CounterPunch , and there are many more detailed articles online, like this one by Andre Damon from July, and this follow-up he published last week (which reports that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges has also been unpersoned). Or, if you're the type of soul who only believes what corporations tell you, and who automatically dismisses anything published by a Trotskyist website, here's one from last December in The Guardian , and an op-ed in The New York Times , both of which at least report what Google, Twitter, and Facebook are up to. Or you could read this piece by Robert Parry , who also has "legitimate" (i.e., corporate) credentials, and who hasn't been unpersoned just yet, although I'm sure they'll get around to him eventually.

    I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise. What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism, where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible.

    Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of as "literature."

    Yes, as you've probably guessed by now, in addition to writing political satire, I am, as rogue journalist Caitlin Johnstone so aptly put it once, an "elitist wanker." I've spent the majority of my adult life writing stage plays and working in the theater, and it doesn't get any more elitist than that. My plays are published by "establishment" publishers, have won a few awards, and have been produced internationally. I recently published my "debut novel" (which is what you call it if you're an elitist wanker) and am currently trying to promote and sell it. I mention this, not to blow my little horn, but to the set the stage to try to illustrate how these post-Orwellian intimidation tactics (i.e., unpersoning people from the Internet) work. These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level.

    The depressing fact of the matter is, in our brave new Internet-dominated world, corporations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook (not to mention Amazon), are, for elitist wankers like me, in the immortal words of Colonel Kurz, "either friends or they are truly enemies to be feared." If you are in the elitist wanker business, regardless of whether you're Jonathan Franzen, Garth Risk Hallberg, Margaret Atwood, or some "mid-list" or "emerging" author, there is no getting around these corporations. So it's kind of foolish, professionally speaking, to write a bunch of essays that will piss them off, and then publish these essays in CounterPunch. Literary agents advise against this. Other elitist literary wankers, once they discover what you've been doing, will avoid you like the bubonic plague. Although it's perfectly fine to write books and movies about fictional evil corporations, writing about how real corporations are using their power to mold societies into self-policing virtual prisons of politically-correct, authoritarian consumers is well, it's something that is just not done in professional elitist wanker circles.

    Normally, all this goes without saying, as these days most elitist wankers are trained how to write, and read, and think, in MFA conformity factories, where they screen out any unstable weirdos with unhealthy interests in political matters. This is to avoid embarrassing episodes like Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize lecture (which, if you haven't read it, you probably should), and is why so much of contemporary literature is so well-behaved and instantly forgettable. This institutionalized screening system is also why the majority of journalists employed by mainstream media outlets understand, without having to be told, what they are, and are not, allowed to report. Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major corporation.

    Or let me provide you with a personal example.

    A couple weeks ago, I googled myself (which we elitist wankers are wont to do), and noticed that two of my published books had disappeared from the "Knowledge Panel" that appears in the upper right of the search results. I also noticed that the people "People Also Search For" in the panel had changed. For years, consistently, the people you saw there had been a variety of other elitist literary wankers and leftist types. Suddenly, they were all rather right-wing types, people like Ilana Mercer and John Derbyshire, and other VDARE writers. So that was a little disconcerting.

    I set out to contact the Google Search specialists to inquire about this mysterious development, and was directed to a series of unhelpful web pages directing me to other unhelpful pages with little boxes where you can write and submit a complaint to Google, which they will completely ignore. Being an elitist literary wanker, I also wrote to Google Books, and exchanged a number of cordial emails with an entity (let's call her Ms. O'Brien) who explained that, for "a variety of reasons," the "visibility" of my books (which had been consistently visible for many years) was subject to change from day to day, and that, regrettably, she couldn't assist me further, and that sending her additional cordial emails was probably a pointless waste of time. Ms. O'Brien was also pleased to report that my books had been restored to "visibility," which, of course, when I checked, they hadn't.

    "Whatever," I told myself, "this is silly. It's probably just some IT thing, maybe Google Books updating its records, or something." However, I was still perplexed by the "People Also Search For" switcheroo, because it's kind of misleading to link my writing to that of a bunch of serious right-wingers. Imagine, if you were a dystopian sci-fi fan, and you googled me to check out my book and see what else I had written, and so on, and my Google "Knowledge Panel" popped up and displayed all these far-right VDARE folks. Unless you're a far-right VDARE type yourself, that might be a little bit of a turn-off.

    At that point, I wondered if I was getting paranoid. Because Google Search runs on algorithms, right? And my political satire and commentary is published, not only in CounterPunch, but also in The Unz Review, where these far-right-wing types are also published. Moreover, my pieces are often reposted by what appear to be "Russia-linked" websites, and everyone knows that the Russians are all a bunch of white supremacists, right? On top of which, it's not like I'm Stephen King here. I am hardly famous enough to warrant the attention of any post-Orwellian corporate conspiracy to stigmatize anti-establishment dissent by manipulating how authors are displayed on Google (i.e., subtly linking them to white supremacists, anti-Semites, and others of that ilk).

    So, okay, I reasoned, what probably happened was over the course of twenty-four hours, for no logical reason whatsoever, all the folks who had been googling me (along with other leftist and literary figures) suddenly stopped googling me, all at once, while, more or less at the exact same time, hundreds of right-wingers started googling me (along with those white supremacist types they had, theoretically, already been googling). That kind of makes sense when you think about it, right? I mean, Google couldn't be doing this intentionally. It must have been some sort of algorithm that detected this sudden, seismic shift in the demographic of people googling me.

    Or, I don't know, does that possibly sound like a desperate attempt to rationalize the malicious behavior of an unaccountable, more or less god-like, global corporation that wields the power of life and death over my book sales and profile on the Internet (a more or less god-like global corporation that could do a lot of additional damage to my sales and reputation with complete impunity once the piece you're reading is published)? Or am I simply getting paranoid, and, in fact, I've developed a secret white supremacist fan base without my knowledge? Only Google knows for sure.

    Such are the conundrums elitist literary wankers have to face these days that is, those of us wankers who haven't learned to keep our fucking mouths shut yet. Probably the safest course of action, regardless of whether I'm being paranoid or Google does have me on some kind of list, is to lay off the anti-corporatist essays, and definitely stop contributing to CounterPunch, not to mention The Unz Review, and probably also give up the whole dystopian satire novel thing, and ensure that my second novel conforms to the "normal" elitist wanker rules (which every literary wanker knows, but which, technically, do not exist). Who knows, if I play my cards right, maybe I can even sell the rights to Miramax, or okay, some other corporation.

    Once that happens, I assume that Google will want to restore me to normal personhood, and return my books to visibility, and I will ride off into the Hollywood sunset with the Clintons, Clooneys, and Pichais, and maybe even Barack Obama himself, if he isn't off jet skiing with Richard Branson, or having dinner with Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, who just happen to live right down the street, or hawking the TPP on television. By that time, CounterPunch and all those other "illegitimate" publications will have been forced onto the dark web anyway, so I won't be giving up all that much. I know, that sounds pretty cold and cynical, but my liberal friends will understand I just hope all my new white supremacist fans will find it in their hearts to forgive me.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

    anonymous , • Disclaimer November 3, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

    Thank you for mustering the courage and then taking the time to spell out these outrages in a straightforward, unemotional way. I've appreciated the humor that centers your other essays, but there's not a damned thing funny about this.

    But why are things as they are? With billions aplenty, our rulers must be driven by their libido dominandi. We're left to wonder only whether they get off more on ostracizing the Hopkinses, on buying the politicians, or on herding the sheep from bathrooms to statues to flags.

    [Nov 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty

    Notable quotes:
    "... The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. ..."
    "... His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." ..."
    "... Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... ..."
    "... Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ..."
    "... He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications. ..."
    "... His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done. ..."
    "... His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. ..."
    "... As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant. ..."
    "... The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself ..."
    "... After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now. ..."
    "... According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man. ..."
    "... It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him. ..."
    "... ***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner. ..."
    "... It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since. ..."
    "... However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) ..."
    "... Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me. ..."
    "... Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again. ..."
    "... I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!) ..."
    "... And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out. ..."
    Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com
    From Publishers Weekly Prouty, who was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years--in the last few of them as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Kennedy--has a highly unusual perspective to offer on the assassination and the events that led up to it. Familiar to moviegoers as the original of the anonymous Washington figure, played by Donald Sutherland in the Oliver Stone's movie JFK , who asks hero Jim Garrison to ponder why Kennedy was killed, Prouty leaves no doubt where he stands.

    The president, he claims, had angered the military-industrial establishment with his procurement policies and his determination to withdraw from Vietnam, and had threatened to break the CIA into "a thousand pieces" after the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

    His death was in effect a coup d'etat that placed in the White House a very different man with a very different approach -- one much more acceptable to what Prouty consistently calls "the power elite." Although he declares that such an elite has operated, supranationally, throughout history, and is all-powerful, he never satisfactorily explains who its members are and how it functions--or how it has allowed the current East-West rapprochement to take place.

    Still, this behind-the-scenes look at how the CIA has shaped postwar U.S. foreign policy is fascinating, as are Prouty's telling questions about the security arrangements in Dallas, his knowledge of the extraordinary government movements at that time (every member of the Cabinet was out of the country when Kennedy was shot) and his perception that most of the press has joined in the cover-up ever since. Photos not seen by PW.
    Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. From Library Journal Prouty, the mysterious "X" in Oliver Stone's JFK , promises to explain why Kennedy was assassinated. Instead, he delivers a muddled collection of undocumented, bizarre theories, most significantly that a super-powerful, avaricious power elite engineered the Cold War and all its pivotal events -- Korea, Vietnam, the U-2 incident, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy assassination.

    Although they are never identified, these shadowy technocrats, working through the CIA, allegedly had Kennedy murdered because he was on the brink of ending America's commitment to Vietnam, along with its billions of dollars of military contracts.

    Prouty avoids some very important issues. Would Kennedy, a Cold War warrior's warrior, have indeed ended American support for Diem? And why couldn't the omnipotent power elite ensure the election of Richard Nixon, its preferred candidate, in 1960--especially since Kennedy won by only .02 percent? A much better choice is John M. Newman's JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power ( LJ 3/15/92). See also James DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case , reviewed in this issue, p. 123.--Ed.

    Emil Petardi on October 1, 2014

    We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty. Mr

    Mr. Prouty points to what he calls "the power elite" as the movers of geopolitics and war. JFK had other ideas as to what makes the world turn. It's the age old battle, as Lincoln put it, "between the divine rights of kings and the common rights of man"... .

    We are living through that kind of paradigm except they now wear suits and carry briefcases and never get theirs hands dirty.

    Mr Prouty is no "conspiracy theorist". He worked in the Pentagon and arranged the support for the CIA operations until he retired in 1964. He knew everyone from Allen Dulles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Coolfire VINE VOICE on May 17, 2012
    Content of highest importance.

    This is a very important book. It is difficult to read, because Prouty's writing is disorganized, perhaps not so to him, but to a reader. The fact is he had first hand knowledge of a great deal of what went on and into the period covering the latter part of WWII, all of Indochina / Vietnam, and into the Cold War. He was in a particularly excellent position, due to his official responsibilities, to know intimately of the OSS and later CIA operations, as well as the White House positions under various presidents, for he saw and worked with their communications.

    His book is full of specifics, many to most of which few people know or knew. He served under three presidents. He was liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA In 1954 he was ordered to establish the Office of Special Operations, and in 1964 retired as chief of Special Operations. In 1963 he wrote the formal directive on covert ops used by Joint Chiefs of Staff for all military services.. What this man, Prouty, said cannot be tossed aside. He knew the subject, and he knew what was done.

    His book really has two entwined themes, the role of CIA operations including the real power which drives those operations and the assassination of JFK. The lessons are real. It would have helped had his writing been more organized, rather than jumping around with much repetition, but he does provide abundant specifics in support of his positions. In many cases he uses first person, as he was present. He knew what he was talking about. He has specifics.

    As for the assassination, he takes apart the Warren Commission in detail, point by point. He knew what was at stake between interested parties, and provides quotes from key JFK White House documents. He goes into the source and evolution of the Indochina / Vietnam war, beginning in 1943, as he was present at those allied high level meetings. He provides eye-opening historical material about which I expect few of our citizens are cognizant.

    His material, cleaned up, should be taught in schools, but such history is never taught in classes. It is only learned `in the field' so to speak. And no nation wants it advertised exactly what drives covert operations and to whose benefit.

    V-ROD on September 15, 2010
    New information here

    I agree with the author's premise of a conspiracy to murder JFK. There is information in this book that I have not read in any other historical reference. For example, the author states that the CIA transported the northern based people of Vietnam called the Tonkin and moved them to the south. He claims that this created a turmoil in the land as people began to fight for resources(food)to live. He states that it was this turmoil that was made to look like a communist infiltration of the country. All of this being a CIA manipulated event. Another interesting aspect is that we had been aiding the French occupation of Vietnam. This continued up until 1954; a few months before Diem being installed as President. We had been helping the enemy of the South Vietnamese people just prior to Diem's installation.

    The premise of this book is that Pres. Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam, and the military-industrial complex didn't want that to happen. Today there is contention whether this is indeed true or not. I think JFK was uncertain himself and that is why you can find facts supporting both schools of thought. For example, Pres. Kennedy stated he wanted to be the first to put a man on the moon. A direct challenge to the cold war enemy Russia. Yet the book states later that Kennedy signed a memorandum desiring cooperation with Russia in the exploration of space. This is obviously an affront to the "cabal" that wanted the cold war to continue. There was alot of money to be made. I was disappointed the author didn't write about Pres.Kennedy issuing silver certificates in defiance of the Federal Reserve.

    After Pres. Kennedy was assasinated it is undeniable we went head first into Vietnam. He had made numerous enemies. The banking industry, the military, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, etc. He was a maverick going against conventional thinking and he had to be removed. As the author states those gunshots on Elm street(which by the way, isn't it interesting that the Hollywood "cabal" chose to use as a title to a famous movie series) were a message to all future Presidents that the "secret team" is running the show now.

    This book is not an easy read. One negative about this book is that the author's points are repeated. It also left me feeling dismayed and bewildered. If you take the author's premise at face value, almost everything we see and read now has the possibility of being a planned event. The fascinating aspect about the JFK assassination is to see how this "secret team" that works behind the scenes is in control of almost all positions of authority that we have in this country. A chief justice resides on the Warren Commission and signs off on the absurd Warren report, police in Dallas allowing reporters direct access to Oswald; at the time the suspect for the murder. Police allowing Jack Ruby to just waltz up to Oswald and shoot him. LBJ and Hoover having a conversation about not wanting a congressional investigation of the assassination and just wanting to use the Hoover/Warren reports. This is way too many coincidences not to have been a conspiracy. Fletcher Prouty may not be 100% accurate, but I'll believe his version over our official history any day.

    Tamango on May 6, 2012

    "Let the truth rein, or let the heaven's fall."

    "This is one of the greatest books written on the assassination of John F. Kennedy,the author Col L. Fletcher Prouty contribution from his work in the pentagon and his common sense view that someone needed to level the playing field-to let the public know that military spending and goals are completely unrealistic. We have to learn from the past and Col. Prouty is one of the few who explain the uncomfortable truth. This uncomfortable feeling goes on today. How do we know when we've won in Iraq or Afghanistan? Will this repeat in Iran and North Korea? What is the next military action that will be another unwinnable war designed to keep the Defense Department in business despite the astronomical costs as it bankrupts the nation? It's time that everyone examine what Col. Fletcher Prouty wrote as a warning of what was really going on as opposed to what was reported regarding the Vietnam war and the removal of John F. Kennedy.

    Col. Prouty blows the lid right off our official history and reveal what is probably the closest to the truth that we will ever get regarding the assassination of JFK, this is a true example of what is done in the dark will come to the light..anyone who wants to continue to hide from the truth, then this book is not for you because you cannot handle the truth,it's too much for you.

    This is a very important book unique in this big mess that continues to surround Kennedy's murder it is a story that has been buried for decades. It is an account the government didnot want you to hear, and actually fabricated evidence in order to keep you from hearing the truth. There are no crackpot theories here, these are facts this great cabal ( the power elite) has control high enough in government or at least in the councils of government, to be able to influence the travel plans of the president, vice-president and a presidential candidate (Nixon) and all members of the kennedy cabinet. They were powerful enough to have orders issued to the army, and were able to mount a massive campaign to control the media during and after the assassination. Now if that is not power in the wrong hands, i donot know what is..there is something about Col. Prouty manner that speaks of authority, knowledge and above all, old fashioned honesty."

    According to prouty kennedy was a victim of a military-industrial complex plot triggered by his plan to withdraw from vietnam, the most important was a top secret National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM 263) drafted only six weeks before the assassination once NSAM 263 was signed, kennedy was, for all intents, a dead man.

    Vietnam for the powers that be... represented the potential of tens of billions of dollars. This is what caused him to be murdered, it was a military-style ambush from start to finish, "a coup d'etat."

    One of the most memorable lines in the book and the movie JFK: "Sometimes i think the organizing principle of any society is for war, the authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers war readiness accounts for approximately a tenth of the output of the world's economy. This power elite together they stand above the law, can any president ever be strong enough really to rule?

    And what about the outright theft of the president's brain from the national archives? And the total and complete failure of the secret service to protect JFK in dallas? It boggles the mind, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor plotted his assassination, and orchested the subsequent cover-up. This is an unspeakable refers to an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.

    If you are not afraid to face the truth then this book is were you would want to start. So many things make sense when you start to put the piece's of the puzzle together and facts and common sense go a long way. That is why most people want to remain ignorant,they cannot face the truth so they try to discredit people like Col. Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Jesse Ventura to make them sound like lone nuts, sound like de'ja vu huh?

    Col. Prouty was a Washington insider for nearly 20 years as chief of staff under president Kennedy this man lived this part of our history, who can better tell us the real deal than someone who was there and lived though it and who does not have anything to gain by keeping the biggest lie told to the american people on-going. Just sticking to the facts of this case and what just take basic common sense is to ask yourself "Why? that's the real question isn't it--why? the how is just scenery,Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, Mafia it keeps people guessing like a parlor game, but it prevents them from asking the most important question--why?

    Why was kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who had the power to cover it up? This book is a must read for anyone out there who still believes in truth and justice for all. Don't believe me or anyone else..do your own thinking for yourself and you might surprise yourself in the process of searching for that truth. I would like to end this by saying thank-you to Col. Prouty, Mr. jim garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jesse Ventura for being courageous enough to step forward to shine a light on the truth.

    And for the non-believer's out there i feel sorry for you that you are satisfied with never really knowing the truth and how much it still effects your life today. I was not even born yet when president kennedy was assassinate but i was born one year later..and the deferences between me and you is i will always search for the truth and question it until i do find it.

    I leave you with this quote: Those who can't remember the past, are condemned to repeat it. Everyone should own a copy of this part of history go out now and purchase this book before it disappear,just like the truth about JFK assassination.

    bruce Lasch on June 29, 2013
    JFK

    I read this book a second time, about 1 year after I read it the first time. Mr Prouty had a very long and interesting career in the Air Air Corps which became the USAF. He has first hand knowledge of much of what he writes about in this book. His book is really the history of the USA since WW II with respect to the warnings of IKE "Beware of the military industrial complex".

    If you did not like President Kennedy but wonder why the US has constantly been "at war" somewhere in the world since WW II then I think you will get a lot out of this book. When I was in the USAF back in the 1970's the higher ranking pilots that I flew with told me that Viet Nam was not a great war but it was the only war they had. Well, wars were good for career building if you were in the war, if you were the military industrial complex war was very good and necessary for profits.

    The Radio Patriot on July 18, 2010
    International Power Elite Pulling the Strings

    I'm reading a stunning book written by the late L. Fletcher Prouty who served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired colonel of the U.S. Air Force, Prouty was in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for the CIA's secret activities. He knew where the bodies were buried and the file cabinet containing the paperwork used to cover it up.

    Prouty was a source for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" and was portrayed as "Mr. X" by Donald Sutherland, the man in black who advised New Orleans DA Jim Garrison (portrayed by Kevin Costner) that he was on the trail to the truth.

    If you have ANY interest whatsoever in learning the truth of the events that led to what happened to our country on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and changed the course of its direction, read it.

    A brief excerpt from the 375+ page book that is the most detailed account of the inception of the CIA and the events that culminated in the coup d'etat on Elm Street in Dallas on a sunny day in November.

    Excerpt:

    From Chapter 16 - Government by Coup d'Etat

    The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of "automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen, hired by a power cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars back in that fatal procession.

    By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who had heard those fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fatal day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters.

    From Chapter 18 - Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK

    "The significance of all this was that I had introduced President Kennedy's Vietnam policy statement NSAM #263, into these discussions. It is my belief that the policy announced so forcefully by Kennedy in his earlier NSAM #55 and in NSAM #263 had been the major factor in causing the decision by certain elements of the power elite to do away with Kennedy before his reelection and to take control of the U.S. government in the process.

    Kennedy's NSAM #263 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would have been reelected President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him."

    I can't put this book down. It is without doubt, the most thorough explanation of the rogue CIA, it's influence and impact on America's involvement in paramilitary operations around the world and subsequent growing conflicts. It is, as Prouty describes:

    "...For the world as a whole, the CIA has now become the bogey that communism had been for America. Wherever there is trouble, violence, suffering, tragedy, the rest of us are now quick to suspect the CIA had a hand in it. Our phobia about the CIA is, no doubt, as fantastically excessive as America's phobia about world communism; but in this case, too, there is just enough convincing guidance to make the phobia genuine...

    "This is what the destruction of sovereignty and disregard for the rule of law means, and it will not stop there. With it will go property rights -- as we have witnessed in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union -- and the rights of man."

    It's not hard to understand why Obama hasn't pulled out of Iraq or Afghanistan. He can't. The military industrial complex and their bankers won't let him.

    This is a fascinating look into the world of the power elite: the supremely powerful international bankers who keep the books and balances for each side.

    "They make these transactions possible by offering the loans, issuing letters of credit, and collecting the interest on the entire package. In many LDCs (third world "less developed countries") the total amount of interest paid to the banks and their international financing structure amounts to more than half of the total value of dollars earned by their exports. For this reason, annual payments are seldom more than the interest involved and none of the principal. This is one reason why the principal never comes back to the United States." (p. 243 - Ch. Sixteen - Government by Coup d'Etat)

    Though the title focuses on the CIA, Vietnam and the plot to kill JFK, this 355 page (not including six pages of notes) book goes much further. It lays out and explains the real power -- the international power elite -- that designs the strategy and moves the pieces on the global chess board of politics, finance, and wars, domestic and international.

    Prouty's very detailed book is based on a 19-part magazine series first developed by Prouty, with and published by Freedom Magazine. Prouty served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy presidency. A retired U.S. Air Force colonel, Prouty was in charge of the global system that provided military support for the CIA's secret activities. He was witness to activities, machinations and policy-making in the Pentagon and the White House that few others can claim. Prouty died in 2001.

    "The year was 1964. Pres. John F. Kennedy had been shot dead months before by bursts of "automatic gunfire" in Dallas by "mechanics," that is, skilled gunmen hired by a power cabal determined to exert control over the United States government. Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK's successor, had been only a few feet under the bullets fired at Kennedy as he rode two cars back in that fatal procession.

    "By 1964 Johnson was becoming mired in the swamp of the Indochina conflict. Kennedy, who had vowed to "break the CIA into a thousand pieces," was dead. LBJ, who heard those fatal bullets zing past his ears, had learned the ultimate lesson; and for good measure, Richard Nixon was in Dallas on that fateful day, so that he, too, had the fact of this ever-present danger imprinted on his memory for future use by his masters. (Ch. Sixteen, Government by Coup d'Etat - p 232)

    ~~*~~

    When World War II ended with the nuclear bomb, the military industrial complex had a dilemma -- it understood that the next world war would be the final one, Yet it needed a way to keep the lucrative business of war making alive and profitable. How? By fighting a war waged for dollars, without a true military objective, under the control of civilian leaders, a war never intended to achieve victory. Enter Vietnam. Sound familiar?

    Chapter Eighteen - "Setting the Stage for the Death of JFK"

    [p 267]

    Kennedy's NSAM #265 policy would have assured that Americans by the hundreds of thousands would not have been sent to the war in Vietnam. This policy was anathema to elements of the military-industrial complex, their bankers, and their allies in the government. This policy and the almost certain fact that Kennedy would be reelected President in 1964 set the stage for the plot to assassinate him.

    [snip]

    First of all, NSAM #263, October 11, 1963, was a crucial White House document. Much of it, guided by White House policy, was actually written by my boss in the Pentagon, General Krulak, myself, and others of his staff. I am familiar with it and with events which led to its creation.

    [snip]

    Our history books and the basic sources of history which lie buried in the archives of government documents that have been concealed from the public, and worse still, government documents that have been tampered with and forged. As I have just demonstrated above, this most important policy statement, NSAM #263, that so many historians and journalists say does not exist, has been divided into two sections in the Pentagon Papers source history.

    ~~*~~

    Chapter Nineteen - Visions of a Kennedy Dynasty

    [pp 289-290]

    "With Kennedy's announcement that he was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of détente. He asked Congress to cut the defense budget. Major programs were being phased out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to build against the young President. The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space program, and in the enormous potential cost -- and profit -- of the Vietnam War.

    Kennedy's plans would mean an end to the warfare in Indochina, which the United States had been supporting for nearly two decades. This would mean the end to some very big business plans, as the following anecdote will illustrate.

    It was reported in an earlier chapter that the First National Bank of Boston had sent William F. Thompson, a vice president, to my office in the Pentagon in 1959, presumably after discussions with CIA officials, to explore "the future of the utilization of the helicopter in [clandestine] military operations" that had been taking place in Indochina up to 1959.

    A client of that bank was Textron, Inc. The bank had suggested to Textron officials that the acquisition of the near-bankrupt Bell Aircraft Company, and particularly its helicopter division, might be a good move. What the bank and Textron needed to determine was the extent of use of helicopters by the military and by the CIA then and the potential for their future in Indochina.

    Both parties were satisfied with the information they acquired from the Pentagon and from other sources in Washington. In due time the acquisition took place, and on October 13, 1963, news media in South Vietnam reported that an elite paramilitary force had made its first helicopter strike against the Vietcong from "Huey" Bell-Textron helicopters. It was also reported in an earlier chapter that more than five thousand helicopters were ultimately destroyed in Indochina and that billions of dollars were spent on helicopter purchases for those lost and their replacements.

    Continuing the warfare in Vietnam, in other words, was of vital importance to these particular powerful financial and manufacturing groups. And helicopters, of course, were but one part of the $220 billion cost of U.S. participation in that conflict. Most of the $220 billion, in fact, was spent after 1963; only $2 - $3 billion had been spent on direct U.S. military activities in Vietnam in all of the years since World War II up to and including 1963. Had Kennedy lived, it would not have gone much higher than that.

    It is often difficult to retrace episodes in history and to locate an incident that became crucial to subsequent events. Here, however, we have a rare opportunity.

    The success of the deal between the First National Bank of Boston, Textron, and Bell hinged on the escalation of the war in Indochina. A key man in this plan was Walter Dornberger, chief of the German Rocket Center at Peenemunde, Germany, during World War II and later an official with the Bell Aircraft Company. Dornberger's associate and later protegé from Peenumunde, Wehrner von Braun, who had been instrumental in the development of the army's Pershing and Jupiter rocket systems, became a central figure in NASA's plans for the race to the moon. Such connections among skilled technicians can be of great importance within the military-industrial complex, as they generally lead to bigger budgets for all related programs.

    Kennedy had announced a reduced military budget, the end of American participation in Indochina, and a major change in the race to the moon. It takes no special wisdom or inside knowledge to understand that certain vested interests considered the Kennedy proposal to defuse Vietnam and these other major budget items to be extremely dangerous to their own plans.

    The pressure brought to bear on Kennedy was intense, but some sort of major event was needed that would stir emotions and trigger action. It is very likely that the death of President Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, on November 1, 1963, in Saigon was one of those events. There were at least eight or nine more that, in retrospect, indicate that a plot against Kennedy had begun to unfold."

    ~~*~~

    Is it any wonder that despite his campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama is still in Iraq and Afghanistan???

    If you apply what Prouty reveals, it follows that Obama does not do anything unless it is decreed by the international power elite -- from pulling out of Iraq/Afghanistan to protecting our Gulf Coast oil-stained states.

    JFK didn't dance to the tune of his masters. He did it his way. It cost him his life. Obama is the creation of his masters. He serves at their pleasure. He won't make JFK's mistake. You can count on it.

    By Theodore M. Herlich on August 11, 1999
    Mr. Prouty's book is excellent as autobiography

    Mr. Prouty served in the Pentagon's Office of Special Operations during a significant portion of his professional military career. In this role, he observed first-hand how the CIA arranged/staged coups d'etat in the Phillipines and other nations around the globe. In the Office of Special Operations, Mr. Prouty was responsible for providing U.S. military support for CIA operations. This experience serves as the basis for Mr. Prouty's strong inference that the assassination of President Kennedy was a CIA-style coup d'etat. The "why" of the coup d'etat is strongly established by Mr. Prouty. JFK intended to withdraw 1,000 military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1963 and hoped to complete the full withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from Vietnam by the close of 1965. To do this, JFK needed to get re-elected. His decision to withdraw from Vietnam was based upon the McNamara-Taylor report of early October, 1963 and codified in National Security Action Memorandum#263 of October 11, 1963. [For a thorough, scholarly analysis of the evolution of JFK's Vietnam policy, see "JFK and Vietnam" by John M. Newman (New York: Warner Books, 1992). Mr. Newman is a professional historian and a faculty member at the University of Maryland]. Powerful interests in the CIA, Pentagon and the corporate world were "gung ho" in favor of large-scale military intervention in Vietnam. The prospective war promised billions of dollars in military contracts for the defense industry. JFK's intention to withdraw from Vietnam would deny these elements in the CIA, Pentagon and corporate communities their pot of gold. Immediately after the assassination of JFK, LBJ issued NSAM#273 on November 26, 1963 which was a complete reversal of JFK's policy. NSAM#273 authorized U.S. military raids into North Vietnam. These raids precipitated the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of July-August 1963, led to Congress' Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and massive U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. LBJ gave the CIA, Pentagon and defense contractors what JFK would have denied them: billions of dollars in defense contracts in support of the full-scale war in Vietnam. For Mr. Prouty, the ultimate inference is irresistible: to effectuate the complete turn-around of Vietnam policy proposed by JFK, a CIA-style coup d'etat was carried out in Dallas on November 22, 1963. LBJ's NSAM#273 reversing JFK's Vietnam policy [from withdrawal to establishing the foundation for massive U.S. intervention] was issued on November 26, 1963. The goals of the coup were obtained immediately following the assassination. Prouty gives us the "why" of the coup. Further research remains to be done in order to give us "who" and the "how". Prouty's work is a valuable starting point for further inquiry and deserves our appreciation for its autobiographical honesty and heartfelt analysis.

    By doctordave77 on January 3, 2016
    Very disappointing.

    Very disappointing. I was looking forward to reading this book primarily because the author was so close to the action. But as other reviewers have pointed out, the focus of the book is a far reaching review of US history since 1944-45. Unfortunately, in this regard, the book is a failure.

    Prouty isn't a historian and I'm sure that he doesn't claim to be one. But to attempt to cover the ground that he does, he's lacking a lot of background knowledge. This shows up quickly in the book - let me give you a couple of examples;

    - He states that President Roosevelt died suddenly, unexpectedly is the word he uses, and this simply isn't true. Roosevelt was bed-ridden for about 6 months before his death and the US government was effectively run by his advisors during this period.

    - He claims that the USA and Russia were allies at the close of WWII (true), but also that an atmosphere of trust existed between the two countries (false). He continues to make the claim that but for the actions of the CIA, the Cold War would not have happened. That's simply not the case - Roosevelt and his advisors weren't happy with Stalin and vice versa. The CIA didn't even formally exist until Truman created them in 1947 and they didn't act without full political approval of the US governments of the time.

    Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, and I completely agree with him that they plotted and achieved the death of JFK. But that doesn't mean that they and the KGB were responsible for creating the Cold War! Does Prouty think that the KGB could have acted in anyway without the full and knowing approval of Stalin himself? And that the Dulles brothers somehow manipulated the USA into the Cold War without the support and approval of Roosevelt and Truman? Apparently, he does!

    Much of his thesis is based on the concept that there is a "power elite" that has actually been in control of world of US and Russian actions since 1944. Perhaps he is correct that a cabal currently sits behind our governments and influences events, but I disagree with his notion that they have controlled political events in the detailed way that he suggests throughout the world since 1944.

    This really isn't a book about JFK and his assassination as it is a somewhat innacurate attempt to describe world history since WWII.

    By Jeff Marzano on November 16, 2014
    Dark And Sinister Revelations

    This book presents a very strange and sinister theory.

    People who are into conspiracy theories talk about groups like the Bilderberg Group who collude in secret to make decisions that are good for them but disastrous for everyone else. Those types of groups, so the theory goes, are not associated with any one particular government or country. Author Fletcher Prouty describes something like that although he says it is not the Bilderberg Group.

    I've always believed in the JFK conspiracy but I never thought this conspiracy extended beyond the United States government and Lyndon Johnson. But yet I have to ask myself, if Fletcher is wrong what is the alternative ? Could he be right ?

    Fletcher Prouty was deeply saddened by what he observed first hand in Vietnam. People who had lived in peace for many thousands of years in northern Vietnam were uprooted from their ancestral lands and moved to the south with nothing but the clothes on their backs. This was done to create hopelessness and a boiling cauldron of despair which was the perfect environment for igniting the inferno of warfare.

    This was all accomplished by that most sinister of organizations called the CIA This agency is expert at creating confusion, human misery, and death on a massive scale with no regard for human life whatsoever.

    Fletcher spends a few chapters analyzing the official story about the Kennedy assassination as far as Oswald's involvement (he was not involved), the number of shooters, and the many unexplained lapses of following official and long held procedures for protecting the president.

    He was able to easily see through the smoke screen of lies created by the government about the JFK assassination and many other things because he saw all this from the inside. He was part of the very machine that caused the escalation in Vietnam and the JFK assassination. The Warren Commission's story does not hold up for many, many reasons. For one thing there were too many bullets fired. What a strange coincidence that on the day JFK was killed Fletcher happened to be in Antarctica serving as a military escort for a bunch of diplomats on some sight seeing excursion.

    But yet it seems the nefarious group that ordered this assassination didn't really care if people thought there was a conspiracy because they knew nobody can do anything anyway. That's what's so scary about all this.

    Fletcher feels this High Cabal, as Winston Churchill called it, has existed for 2,000 years or more in some form. Perhaps this is that great, lying beast and multi headed hydra described in the bible in the Book Of Revelation.

    Some of the groups Fletcher feels are part of this cabal are the CIA and the other American intelligence agencies, the American military, international bankers, industrialists, and the Dallas police department. But beyond that even Fletcher doesn't know who is really at the very top of this super elite power structure.

    For Fletcher this cabal is much more powerful than the president of the United States and they will disregard what the president says if they want to. That's exactly what happened when the CIA sent Gary Powers on a U2 spy plane mission over Russia and made sure the plane malfunctioned. As a result a planned peace summit between president Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev was cancelled. Ike had given orders to stop all covert activity until this summit was over.

    They also cancelled a mission to shoot up Fidel Castro's three aircraft before the Bay Of Pigs fiasco. That was a direct failure to follow president Kennedy's orders to make sure these planes were destroyed before the invasion. They did this to embarrass president Kennedy. That's because peace is the High Cabal's greatest fear and enemy.

    The election of president Kennedy was a disaster for the High Cabal. JFK was interfering with their plans to spend, not billions, but trillions of dollars in Vietnam and on their other Cold War projects. JFK was interfering with their ability to control the American government. So they killed him and regained that power, partially through their murderous accomplice Lyin' Lyndon Johnson.

    After World War II the High Cabal created the perception in the public's mind of an epic struggle between Communism and the West. They used this false premise to create limited, protracted warfare all over the world. But they had to ensure the fighting did not become too intense because of the ever present menace of nuclear weapons.

    Could it really be that the High Cabal doesn't care about the ideological struggle between Communism and the West or any other ideology for that matter ? Could the CIA, the KGB, and other similar groups really be providing weapons to the combatants on all sides just to prolong warfare forever ? That's what Fletcher Prouty says in this book.

    Another point is the Vietnam conflict did not have any well defined military objective so it was doomed to become a protracted and ultimately unsuccessful bloodbath with the body count being the only measure of success.

    Here's an exchange between Lyin' Lyndon Johnson and military legend General Creighton Abrams and his aide:

    Lyndon:

    "Abe, you are going over there to win. You will have an army of 550,000 men, one of the most powerful air forces ever assembled, and the invincible Seventh Fleet of the U.S. Navy offshore. Now go over there and do it."

    Aide:

    "Mr. President, you have told us to go over there and do 'it'. Would you care to define what 'it' is ?"

    Johnson remained silent as he ushered General Abrams and his men out of the Oval Office.

    Fletcher appears in an episode of the documentary 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. The hypocrites have taken legal action to have some of those episodes pulled off the market and the DVDs are no longer available for those 'Final Chapter' episodes. However 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' can still be watched on the internet which I highly recommend.

    Fletcher served as an advisor for Oliver Stone when Stone created his JFK movie. Stone's movie created a lot of controversy with the public and as a result people called for more hearings about the assassination. But those later investigations ran into the same brick wall of secrecy and deception that continues to this very day.

    Fletcher drops another bomb shell in the notes section at the end of the book. He says on the day of the assassination JFK was shot with a poisonous flechette that was launched from an umbrella. A flechette is a very small, rocket propelled dart which travels at a very high velocity and which is very difficult to detect during an autopsy. Why they poisoned JFK even though they were planning on shooting him anyway I don't know. This may have been insurance in case JFK was not shot or not shot fatally.

    The people who did this were professional killers. They leave very little to chance and account for many different scenarios.

    On the Trail of the Assassins: One Man's Quest to Solve the Murder of President Kennedy

    The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

    The Men Who Killed Kennedy

    Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination

    David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot, Participant in Anti-Castro Bioweapon Plot, Friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Key to the JFK Assassination

    Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret Laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses Are Linked to Lee Harvey ... Assassination and Emerging Global Epidemics

    Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-up

    UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973

    The Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD Series - Episode List

    1. "The Coup D'Etat" (25 October 1988)

    2. "The Forces Of Darkness" (25 October 1988)

    3. "The Cover-Up" (20 November 1991)

    4. "The Patsy" (21 November 1991)

    5. "The Witnesses" (21 November 1991)

    6. "The Truth Shall Set You Free" (1995)

    The Final Chapter episodes (internet only):

    7. "The Smoking Guns" (2003)

    8. "The Love Affair" (2003)

    9. "The Guilty Men" (2003)

    By A Time Traveler on February 7, 2014
    As Told By a Pentagon/Military Insider Since WWII

    For all intents and pruposes, Prouty was serving behind the scenes of US Intelligence services in one capacity or another since before WWII (as special duty at both the Cairo and Tehran Conferences), until the day he retired. So how do you know he isn't just like all the other shills and "company men" from the inside who tell the public only what the elite want them to know? There is no better illustration of Prouty's willingness to tell his whole story -- with the vast information at his disposal -- than Page 260, which in this edition, is in Chapter 17 JFK's Plan to End the Vietnam Warfare:

    "Why did the US government in 1945, before the end of World War II, choose to arm and equip Ho Chi Minh? Why did the United States, a few short years later, shift its allegiance from Ho Chi Minh to the French in their losing struggle that ended ignominiously with the battle of Dien Bien Phu? Why, after creating the Diem government in 1954 and after supporting that government for ten years, did the United States shift again and encourage those Vietnamese who planned to overthrow it? And finally, why, after creating an enormous military force in Indochina, did the US government fail to go ahead and defeat this same Ho Chi Minh when, by all traditional standards of warfare, it possessed the means to do so?"

    And this makes-up the majority of this work by Prouty. He wisely stays with the evidence that HE has at his disposal. In other words, what Prouty effectively laid out for the reader, is the "Why" in the Kennedy assassination. He does so without assuming very much, as when reading the book, you see very well that there was quite a large swath of the Military Industrial Complex that stood to loose billions if Kennedy had lived. And thankfully, Prouty effectively explains in great detail that any myth about Kennedy escalating the Vietnam war is just that -- a myth. And Prouty's evidence of this? Documents from his time in the Pentagon and White House, not to mention press members and administration members who backed Kennedy's own words that US forces would be pulled out of the region after he was reelected.

    For those who wish to research this subject further than the events in Dealey Plaza, Prouty's book is for you. If you want an idea as to "why" Kennedy was killed, I couldn't recommend this book highly enough.

    By Acute Observer on October 20, 2014
    Memoirs of an Insider

    JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

    Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

    Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

    Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

    L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

    On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

    By Liz KS on November 24, 2015
    Hard to put down.

    A must read if you're wanting answers. I was and I've read a lot of books about this era because I lived through it and wanted answers to questions I had. Now it all makes sense. I would also suggest reading "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by Anthony Summers. I had a hard time putting that book down too.

    By Herbert L Calhoun on October 31, 2013
    The Long Journey to Dallas Texas

    JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

    by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty

    The Long Journey to Dallas Texas

    Spoiler alert: This is neither the shortest version, nor the shortest route to understanding the JFK assassination. But it is as close to the complete canonical text and understanding of the assassination as there is ever likely to be. It is told by an insider, the high priest of understanding about the JFK assassination if you ask me (or Oliver Stone), one who has been around long enough, and has resided deep enough inside the bowels of the US government to know where all the skeletons are buried.

    Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty was also a member of "The Secret Team," which he wrote a very revealing book about, of the same name. It has proven to be a critical part of the unfolding of the 50-year old drama of the JFK assassination. (Read my Amazon review of it.)

    Here Col Prouty takes us by the hand and guides us on a journey, moving slowly but steadily and deliberately along a long winding path, through the historical underbrush beginning at the end of WW-II. He then leads us out into a clearing called "the Cold War," where events are craftily orchestrated around the threat of a nuclear holocaust. But it is orchestrated in such a way that the right to continue endless conventional wars is preserved and the world is made forever safe "for wars of profit" by other more novel means. Korea, would be the first but not the last of the "make money wars." The mother of all such un-winnable "money wars," however was Vietnam. It would represent a signature turn in the road that would "vector" directly to the JFK assassination. However, along the way the reader will also be introduced to Saudi Arabia, Iran and the oil angle, and then on to Cuba and the threat of nuclear war, finally ending up at high noon on 11/22/63 with the assassination of our 35th president.

    As enlightening as the journey is it is not an easy trip for a "democratically trained mind." For along the way, we must unlearn the old rules of democracy in favor of learning a new set, with a new unwritten covenant, as well as a new vocabulary of reactionary and self-destructive power politics. And with them, we must also adopt and adapt to wearing a new kind of emotional straitjacket, armor better to make us comfortable granting involuntary consent to these altered understandings of how our more twisted and diminished democracy is supposed to work.

    To wit: We the people, and they, our new anonymous ruling power elite, consent to govern us from above but forever behind the screen, promising nothing but to be unreliable invisible puppet-masters. And in return "we the people" are expected to close our "lying eyes" and pretend that when "we" see JFK's head snap violently back and to the left, it did not really happen? Now, and henceforth, our only reality tests are those prepared for us by our "lying media," the lemmings bought and paid for by our new invisible rulers. In short, the new contract mandates that we go along quietly, without whimpering, and accept the fact that "we the people" have been robbed of all previous contractual understandings of what a democratic government is supposed to mean.

    What government "by," "for" and "of" the people used to mean, has been permanently altered. In this new "hyper real context" of being governed by an anonymous power elite, who are constantly pulling the strings from behind the curtains, government "by," "for" and "of" the people now means whatever our anonymous puppet-masters' media outlets tell us it means.

    Those steeped in the conspiracy paranoia of the likes of the Bilderburghers, the Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, must understand that what Colonel Prouty is telling us here is not the same. They will find no comfort here on this journey for cheap conspiracy nonsense. Instead, they will find here just the clean facts, with all of the dots connected, convincingly written by one of the last of America's authentic patriots. When readers complete this book, they will then understand why the Bilderburghers, the Trilateralists, and the Council of Foreign Relations, are all superfluous and unnecessary. All of the questions one can imagine about the JFK assassination are answered here.

    A "Rough" Summary of Colonel Prouty's Story

    After World War II, and owing primarily to the creation of the CIA, the U.S entered a new "hyper covert reality" in which, just as General Eisenhower had warned in his farewell address, the machinery of government was effectively commandeered by reactionary warmongers and war profiteers. The post-war power elite ruled by calling for continuous wars, with the CIA and the military acting as their vanguard and shock troops. There was nothing subtle about this take over, nor is reference to it just knee-jerk conspiracy nonsense. Colonel Prouty provides us a framework and a clear discrete paper trail that reveals every step of the "take over process," steps that he argues convincingly led inexorably to the JFK assassination.

    Step one was carefully embedded within policy memorandum NSC-5412, which among other things, gave all covert operations over to the CIA, and specifically prohibited the active military from engaging in them. However, after the spectacular debacle of the John Foster Dulles led Bay of Pigs operation, JFK issued (and was in the process of implementing at the time of his very timely assassination), a reversal of this policy with NSC-55, which would have given the responsibility for covert operations back to the active military through the JCS. Not only was this reversing directive never implemented, but with JFK's death, all of the generals running the Vietnam War, were actually CIA officers operating under military cover and rank. According to Colonel Prouty, this was nail #1 in the JFK coffin.

    Nail number two involved an excruciatingly carefully worked out policy directive, NSAM-65 by the JFK national security team. It was the policy directive initiating the complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965. NSAM-65 was drawn up after an unprecedented 23 high-level meetings by JFK's and his national security team. Not only was NSAM-65 not implemented, but it was reversed in a week after the assassination by LBJ initiated policy directives NSC-273 and NSC-288.

    The final nail in the coffin, according to Colonel Prouty, the one that actually signaled that assassination plans were already afoot, is the tell-tale fact that in the Pentagon papers that had been released within the government before JFK was assassinated (and later exposed publicly by Daniel Ellsberg), one-page cover sheets were entered in the text at the point where the substance of JFK's two policy directives should have been? Twenty-five stars

    By Luc REYNAERT on August 24, 2007
    Today America has become the nightmare (Arnold Toynbee)

    Prouty's autobiography is very revealing indeed. Of course, it contains controversial items (Would JFK have stopped the Vietnam War?). But, it is the general picture that counts, and here, the author is prophetic.

    Prouty presents his world view as follows: `The world is ruled by a power elite. The basic motivations are always the same. Money lays at the root ... the enormous amount spent on military matériel.'

    This elite wields its power partly and most importantly through invisible intelligence agencies. `The power of any agency allowed to operate in secrecy is boundless'.

    Nationally, JFK would probably be reelected in 1964, also via carefully directed investments, which should have influenced favorably the voting in heavily contested states. This reelection for another 4 years was very hard to swallow for a part of the power elite. JFK had promised to cut the defense budget and destroy one of its power bases (`split an intelligence agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.')

    JFK's masterfully planned assassination was a coup d'état, not less than a total takeover of the US government. The cover-up of the assassination, which is still going on, shows the immense power of the culprits. They controlled the Warner Commission and could (can) force, until today, the media and Congress to pay lip service to them. Congress was never capable to launch an adequate investigation into the murder.

    Internationally, `the world's power elite benefited splendidly from the staggering sums involved in the Vietnam War.' The author's moving evocation of the fate of a pastoral Vietnamese village shows that `people's lives are valueless when they get in the way of elitist interests.' (Mark Curtis)

    The powerful show absolutely no respect for national sovereignty (e.g., Vietnam, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, the Philippines, even Grenada), which is the principle on which `the family of nations exists, with its property rights and the rights of man.'

    At the end, Prouty is even prophetic: `the power elite utilizes all manner of plots to achieve their ambitious goal. That gamesmanship is called `Terrorism'.

    This book is a must read for all those wanting to understand the world we live in.

    By Thomas J. Farrell on December 25, 2014
    Well written and ably researched

    In his perceptive book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY (2011), Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty (Retired, U.S. Air Force) admirably demonstrates that he understands the dynamics involved in the Vietnam War. Time and again, Col. Prouty draws on his own personal experience to elucidate various matters he discusses.

    Concerning the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson used trumped-up charges to escalate the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam into a major tragedy - and a defeat for the United States. Col. Prouty sees the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as having orchestrated the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Allen Dulles was the director of the CIA - until President John F. Kennedy fired him as a result of the CIA adventure to invade Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs debacle. During the Eisenhower administration, Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, served as the Secretary of State. The Dulles brothers were fervently anti-communist. Moreover, they regarded nation-states not aligned with the U.S. as aligned with the communists - the enemy in the Cold War.

    Concerning the Dulles brothers, see Stephen Kinzer's book THE BROTHERS: JOHN FOSTER DULLES, ALLEN DULLES, AND THEIR SECRET WORLD WAR (2013). In my estimate, Kinzer does fine job of tracing the American anti-communist spirit back to the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917. But Col. Prouty does not advert to this earlier history of the American anti-communist spirit. Instead, he picks up the story in the waning times of World War II (WWII). As he points out, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union was one of our allies in WWII against Adolf Hitler's Nazis in Germany. As Col. Prouty also points out, Chiang Kai-shek's China was one of our allies in WWII against Japan. (Subsequently, Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by Moa Tse-tung's communist forces.)

    Col. Prouty explains how 1.1 million peasants had earlier been transported about a thousand miles from their traditional culture in what then became known as the nation-state of North Vietnam and had been relocated in what then became known as the nation-state of South Vietnam, where they were landless and poor. Their relocation was orchestrated by the CIA

    As a result of their dire needs for food, many of them became bandits. As Col. Prouty repeatedly explains, those bandits had been relocated in the Mekong Delta. The Mekong Delta is so far to the south of North Vietnam as to preclude their having infiltrated from North Vietnam. Unfortunately, those bandits were considered to be communist "infiltrators" from North Vietnam - the enemy. Those bandits came to be referred to as the Vietcong.

    With admirable clear-sightedness, Col. Prouty also explains the complicated logistics of helicopter warfare in the Vietnam War.

    Because President Harry Truman had dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get Japan to surrender, most powerful Americans had subsequently figured out that another all-out war like WWII would result in the nuclear destruction of human life on the planet. As a result, Col. Prouty claims, President Johnson would not authorize the American military to fight for victory over North Vietnam because such a fight would of necessity run the risk of expanding the conflict to bring in China and perhaps the Soviet Union - and thereby risk the dreaded nuclear holocaust. Thus American forces were consigned to waging the Vietnam War without risking victory - and the dreaded nuclear holocaust.

    Even though Col. Prouty's overall discussion of the Vietnam War is astute, his major thesis in the book is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, by experienced assassins hired to do the job. In CIA parlance, such hired assassins were referred to as "mechanics."

    President Kennedy had ordered that all American advisers would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Moreover, he was likely to win re-election in 1964, which would mean that he could make his order stick.

    However, for years, the CIA had been cultivating Vietnam for a war there. A war there would serve the purposes of enriching what President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address had referred to as the military-industrial complex - in plain English, war profiteers. No doubt the war profiteers did profit enormously from the Vietnam War. (Of course the war profiteers employed many Americans in their civilian work force.)

    Despite the fact that Col. Prouty suggests that the CIA was probably involved in President Kennedy's assassination, he stops well short of naming specific CIA and other government officials who were involved in the carefully orchestrated plot to assassinate President Kennedy. In this respect, we could say that Col. Prouty paints the big picture - but he ably paints the big picture.

    In conclusion, Col. Prouty's book JFK: THE CIA, VIETNAM, AND THE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE JOHN F. KENNEDY (2011) is well written and ably researched.

    By John Duddy on August 21, 2015
    Who runs this planet?

    This is a shocking book. L. Fletcher Prouty is a world class whistleblower. After reading this masterpiece take another look at the official 9/11 report. The secret cabal running our planet has been exposed by many writers and few politicians; this is an insider's report on that cabal. False flag attacks are now used by the cabal, not only in USA but in any country where the locals are not towing the line as demanded by the banksters.

    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. -- Voltaire"

    Amazing, the cabal has kept the lid on the murder of JFK for over 50 years. How long will we be kept in the dark about 9/11?

    By W. Wilt on March 11, 2014
    So somebody finally pulls it all together--the conspiracy is not a theory, it's all facts. Circumstantial, but no lies

    Best editorial trick revealed: Leslie H. Gelb, who was to the Watergate papers what Phil Zelikow was to the 9/11 Commission novel, used the neat writer's trick (Gelb was a New York Times editor, you may recall) to hide something in black ink on a white page. Gelb uses the title President to avoid mentioning that JFK's presidency was ended with bullets. The President (JFK) had NSAM #263 written & promulgated, 1 Oct 63. The memo noted that the troops could be pulled out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Ending the CIA-guided Indochina war they'd begun in September of 1945. So Gelb has "The President" as author of #263, have a mind-change with his cabinet, all of who had decided to go to Honolulu for the 22nd. On the 23rd, when an official speaks with The President, and a new NSAM is issued--#273, which called for an escalation of Conflict. The President of #263 has changed his mind and issued #273. The title stays the same, but the brain of the President who commissioned #263 was blown away by, what, Hornady hollow-point, boat-tail bullets (the kind the Abteilung der Heimats Versicherheit (dept of "home" "security"). And "The President" of the second instance just happened to be a different president, LBJ.

    That's some clever and wondrously deliberate writing. The words are there in front of your nose, in plain sight. And yet they hide the circumstances, that, in the brief period between Nov. 21 and Nov. 23, the title President had not changed--just the life and body for which it represented. (In the newspaper biz, novices are instructed to "write around" facts that are missing. In this case, a few years after the Assassination of JFK, i think most people had gotten the news that JFK was dead and gone. Gelb and his boss were in that news loop, so I doubt Gelb would testify that he didn't know that JFK had been murdered (by a head shot fired from the Grassy Knoll, of course, but who's quibbling). No reason to fail to mention that The President (JFK) had been replaced by The President (LBJ), except if you want to avoid the "chance" that people will notice that Presidential Policy on Nov 21, 1963 (NSAM 263 (JFK) hand changed 180 degrees to Presidential Policy (NSAM 273) on Nov. 23 (LBJ).

    So in the murder investigation, you'd want to bring Gelb in to get his story. You might want to set a water-board in the witness box right next to him--perhaps the special, autographed KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) model, guaranteed to last at least 168 uses (whether by one "detainee" (POW) or a succession of them. And you'd want to get all this moving while at least a few of the players are still alive. I'd like to hear what David R. and the rest of the Wall Street Banksters and lawyers have to say about JFK, RFK, Tonkin, USS Liberty, 9/11, etc. And also what Cheney and Shrub I and Shrub II and Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz and Pearle, etc., have to say about all the above.

    At any rate, Prouty is a must-read. As is William Pepper's "An Act of State: The assassination of MLKjr." which puts the quietus to the phrase "conspiracy theory". Not a theory any longer, but a conspiracy fact. But who will prosecute members of the High Cabal? They run the government, with their private army, the CIA, and have since Nov. 22, 1963. Not that anybody cares, of course.

    By Acute Observer on October 20, 2014
    Memoirs of an Insider

    JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

    Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency. L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

    Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?). "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

    Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor? Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

    L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187). Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

    On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day. The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

    By Michael Tozer on September 1, 2006
    Simply Great!

    In this volume, Colonel Fletcher Prouty captures both the secret history of the United States from 1945 to 1975 and the reasons behind the plot to kill President Kennedy. Herein, the courageous Colonel illustrates quite clearly that the clandestine history and the assassination plot were intrinsically linked.

    From the important information in this book, we learn that the war in Vietnam actually began on September 2, 1945, when Ho Chi Minh was established as the new leader of Vietnam by our OSS, the predecessor of the CIA, and the US Army. The United States was thoughtful enough to provide all the weapons, ammunition, and supplies necessary for Ho and Giap to pursue their war against the French, which culminated in the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. Following that defeat, the CIA arranged for the transfer of 1.1 million "refugees" from the North of Vietnam to the South. These folks caused such disruption in the fragile agricultural economy of the South that their arrival ultimately drove the orginal residents to banditry in order that they might survive. These displaced bandits became what was later known as the Viet Cong. Hence, the CIA created the conditions necessary for a full scale war in Vietnam.

    On coming to office, Kennedy, a brilliant and studious man, came soon to understand the perfidy of the CIA One of first his acts on realizing this was to fire CIA director Allen Dulles. Soon thereafter, he issued one the most important, and unknown, documents of US history, NSAM 263. Issued in October of 1963, this document called for 1,000 US military personnel to come home from Vietnam by that Christmas. The remainder were to be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965. Had John Kennedy lived, what Americans know as the war in Vietnam would never have happened.

    Prouty demonstrates herein that the powers that be ultimately made the decision that they could not allow Kennedy to live. He makes it clear that assassination researches who make a career of examining the details of the government's false cover story truly miss the point. What matters is not how the President was killed, but why. And the answer to that question is that the assassination was a coup d'etat, transferring control of the government of the United States to a power elite, which has been in control ever since. Hence, we have the strange silence of every succeeding President on the issue of the cover up of the Kennedy assassination.

    The book is well written and extraordinarily important. He would understand our nation and how it came to be in the condition that now obtains would be well advised to read carefully this terribly important book. God bless.

    By Bill Crowley on June 27, 2015
    Finally, a man on the inside talks

    This book is written by someone who was sitting in the middle of Eisenhower's feared military-industrial complex, instead of an outside researcher. Col Prouty lived what he tells us for several years. He saw the Korean & the Vietnam War buildup from the inside; he watched as the Bay of Pigs went down and No, it was not JFK's fault.

    I was most impressed that Col Prouty is the actual person depicted as "Mr. X" and portrayed by Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's JFK.

    If only half of what he tells us is the truth, then we need to demand another look at JFK's murder.

    By Peter Cimino on November 6, 2012
    Fascinating read, from a man inside the Military Complex

    Overall, this was a fascinatiing read, and an awesome addition to my already humongous JFK Assassination collection. My only points of contention: 1)The name of it (and I realize the name needs to attract the reader) should have been The Military Complex / The Power Elite: How it works and it's connection to the JFK Assassination. The first three quarters of this book was all about the High Cabal and the Military complex. Incredibly detailed and compelling reading, but I just could not wait for it to end so we could get to the JFK part. But when it did...BAM! I could not put the book down. 2) This may be minor, but parts were extremely repetitve. I stopped counting how many times he referred to the one million Vietnemese who migrated to South Vietnam. I know he was trying to bang the point home, but it got to a point where it was not needed. 3) Once he got to the assassination itself I truly thought he would get into names...who made up this High Cabal or Power Elite that is more powerful than the President and US Government. I understand this could be dangerous...but a little hint would have been nice. 4) I thought he would get into more detail how the Assassination was pulled off. He drops a lot of hints and possibilities, but never really gives details to his personal thoughts. I cannot believe Mr. Prouty, after all his years serving in the military in the sensitive positions he held, could not come up with some kind of idea. Be that as it my, I truly believe this is as close the truth that we could ever get. I think this give the Why and Who would benefit. But would love even more detail. Maybe that's asking too much... Whether or not you are a JFK Assassination buff...this is truly an amazing read.

    By Gianmarco Manzione on February 12, 2005
    An Admirble Attempt at Truth-telling by a Good Man

    If you have come to this book looking for another lean, persuasive investigation of the various conspiracies that could have led to the killing of JFK, you have come to the wrong place. prouty's book reaches far wider than that narrow scope, exploring every square inch of his vast, first-hand knowledge of the workings and consequences of the so-called Cold War (though I don't see how the bloody loss of millions of lives during that time constitute a war that was anything but blazing hot).

    Prouty, a former Air Force colonel and CIA insider, manages to observe his life's work from an objective standpoint that raises countless probing and often hair-raising questions and warnings. Reaching back to the origins of the cold war and its effects on the policy and history that would soon be made, Prouty paints an expansive, thorough and detailed account not only of the JFK assassination, but of the entire political and industrial framework festering in the 20 years leading up to that moment that allowed such a tragedy to take place.

    Contrary to most other books that deal --either obliquely or directly -- with JFK's murder, prouty's endures with a relevance that has as much to say about our own time as it does about Kennedy's. He foresees all the problems of a tyrannically powerful CIA that functions as the President's puppet master. "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are CIA students of yesterday," Prouty asserts in what amounts to an astonishing revelation when one considers that, among others, Osama Bin Laden is one of those "CIA students of yesterday." But it isn't only terrorists: it is the people we put in place as American puppets around the world. Take Hamad Karzai, for example, former CIA agent and millionaire now serving as President of Afghanistan.

    The intimate and omnipotent mingling of money, military, covert intelligence operations and politics is precisely the network of power Prouty implicates not only in the crime that was the JFK murder, but the crime of so many brutal wars and coups performed by the CIA throughout the world to this very day. We are under the tyranny of an intelligence elite, an elite that happens to have the most powerful military and political machines on the planet at its service.

    As prouty shows, Truman regretted his approval of the formation of the CIA toward the end of his presidency. Eisenhower tried to curb its powers but failed miserably, and when Kennedy fired Allen Dulles -- CIA chief at the time -- and not only threatened but actually worked to break the CIA "into a thousand pieces," he was killed. If that strieks you as an irrational logical leap, you need to read Prouty's book.

    It is admirable that he undertook the writing of the book himself, rather than resorting to the services of some professional writer as so many politicians and military officials do for their memoirs and other books. Consequently, Prouty's book suffers a bit from a lack of the kind of polish it might have had. He struggles to organize his vast knowledge into the kind of coherant narrative he envisions and promises to no avail throughout. The reader has to work a little harder here to put the many pieces together that prouty lays out.

    Nonetheless, Prouty's book reads like a desperate, angry and even frantic attempt at telling the truth by a man whose writing voice belies a remarkable warmth and sincerity. He knows so much and is so appalled at the hypocrisy he witnessed throughout his career -- hypocrisy that turned to horror -- that his book reads like the result of a minor god angrily shaking his fists and roaring in a locked room. His background, littered with merits and accolades, backs up every claim he makes here.

    Prouty's book is entirely based on first-hand knowledge and expertise he gleaned over the course of a distinguished career: the precarious security arrangements in Dallas that day, Kennedy's advocacy of a US note that would compete with the federal note, his vow to remove all troops from Vietnam by 1965 and how this threatened the money-making machine that was the Vietnam "conflict," the utter astonishment in Washington at Kennedy's victory over Nixon, a man for whom various war and intelligence initiatives had already been drawn up for him to sign off on at the start of his presidency -- before he was even elected!

    From its first hour, Kennedy's thousand-day presidency threatened so many established powers, so many benefactors of the military industrial complex, that there was no way it could have ended up otherwise. Even Robert McNamara, a great admirer of the president and godfather to one of Bobby Kennedy's kids, understood that a helicopter-augmented war like Vietnam would "churn out big dollars," that the war itself was capable of creating the $500 billion in military-industrial profits it eventually raised. Any former Ford executive understands the profits inherent in the collusion between military and industry.

    As Prouty reports, quoting the controversial novel "Report From iron Mountain," "The war system is indispensable to the stable political structure . . . war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power." This is precisely the bleak "necessity" that Kennedy eventually grew to rebuke, and it was that rebuke that put the nails in his coffin long before his trip to Dallas.

    By A customer on June 15, 1996
    Very, very good.

    I am a fan of Col Prouty, ever since I read The Secret Team.

    Oliver Stone is in excellent company, because both of these men aren't afraid to tell the truth.

    It is exactly the lack of truth that is killing the

    United States.

    Those who attack this book, and Stone, with the usual ignorant hysterics, are part of the cancer that is destroying the very innards of the last, great democracy on earth.

    JFK's assasination was just a symptom of disease that is ravageing us today. This book supports this point.

    By the way, if you believe the results of the Warren Commmission, (the House Select Comm. on Assasinations didn't, in 1976-78),then you are part of the problem.

    This book gives an excellent pre-text to the take-over plans of the war-industy complex,starting after World War II. Prouty clearly states how the US Navy took part in the destabilization of Viet Nam by assisting in exporting tribes to the south. The resulting mess fell into Kennedy's hands.

    You can understand why the fascists would have to dispatch a man like Kennedy, because he tried to do what was right. He was too charismatic, and he was correct. He could move too get emotionally involved, and then to act. This was viewed to be a dangerous thing.

    Kennedy's Presidential Memorandum #263 was the spark the could ignite a conflagration, pulling the armed forces out of Viet Nam. This correct moral action would lead to other positive events, such as the deconstruction of the war machine at home. If this course was allowed to be taken. It didn't , of course.

    The Military Right Wing and Ultra Hawks of the US had to liquidate Kennedy. Then, later, Bobby, Malcom X, King... and I am sure that it was They were all done in by the same smoking gun. They couldn't stand in the light of truth, like a vampire can stand the light of the sun.

    The prolem is still rampant today, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    Read this book before revisionist history forces it from the shelves. Keep it alive, talk about it. You'll find that you will defend it when you see the context that is carefully presented by Prouty.

    Also, think about how (now) Sen. Arlen Specter told us how the "magic" bullet is proof of the single assasin theory. Then think about how he told us that this same bullet dediced to wait in the air 1.6 seconds before striking Gov. Connally, and then move on to kill President Kennedy, and still later was recovered with absolutely no loss of mass. Think, then reject the fantasy tale outright.Specter was a liar, then as he is today, and the Warren Commisssion's finding are pathetically false.

    You should then read this book. It's not fantasy.

    The cancer grows as you read this, but it is not too late... I think. If enough people get informed, and then act according to their conscience, they can then eradicate the cancer.

    There are not enough liar/fascists to stop a revolution of the truth. Today, they are afraid, and for good reason.

    Thank you.

    MBF

    By A customer on December 24, 1998
    "The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance

    These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI, (Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good "original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson, MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to his country, the United States of America.

    Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he does, in fact, speak the truth.

    I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:

    Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.

    At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of the United States. If one who is in such a position:

    1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;

    2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" -- i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;

    3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F. Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup d'etat";

    Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.

    I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.

    In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."

    GO_SECURE

    Gregory Burnham

    VISAC

    By Acute Observer on January 22, 2002
    Memoirs of an Insider

    Events in the real world and society are mostly planned, they do not just happen. This book presents selected events from 1943 to 1990. The major events of this time were craftily and systematically planned by the power elite. This book will attempt to explain the Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the effects of the development of the hydrogen bomb, and why the "military-industrial complex" removed JFK from the Presidency.

    L. Fletcher Prouty spent 1955-64 as chief of special operations. Page xxxiii tells of one incident he witnessed of the "power elite". Page 4 explains how an agent for the East India Company created an ideological justification for eliminating unwanted people. Page 8 says that neither H-bombs or "Star Wars" can prevent warfare by terrorists.

    Pages 15-16 tells of the driving force of acquisitiveness. Mineral wealth is controlled by corporate interests directly, or by the World Bank or International Monetary Fund. Genocide is regularly practices to limit the "excess population", particularly those who object to this exploitation. He repeats Elliot Roosevelt's story about Stalin's claim that FDR was poisoned (he had spies everywhere?).

    "Many of the skilled saboteurs and terrorists of today are the CIA students of yesterday" (p.37). "The first aerial hijackings were publicly solicited by the US in return for big cash awards, plus sanctuary". Page 56 tells why so many of our leaders are lawyers: they are trained to work under the direction of their clients. Their "lawyer-client confidence" ensures secrecy, even in court; they work for international law firms in government, banks, and major industries.

    Chapter Six, "Genocide by Transfer", tells how over a million Tonkinese were moved to Cochin China; it caused a rice shortage in a previously rice-exporting country! The destruction of self-sufficient villages created consumers of imported food (like post-1962 Burma), and enriched merchants and shippers. It also created a source of cheap labor?

    Chapter Seven tells of the destruction of the village economy, and the resulting banditry. The depopulation of rural counties and the "urban renewal" in the big cities caused internal migration and a rise in the crime rate here in America too. After Textron Corporation bought Bell helicopters, there was now a need for these helicopters in Vietnam. Page 108 tells how 43% of lives lost were "not from action by hostile forces" - just accidents! The high cost of machines and their need for maintenance (supplies, personnel) helped to lose the war.

    L. Fletcher Prouty says the massive slaughter in Cambodia, the Iran-Iraq war, "Desert Storm", and the Middle East hostilities are an example of Malthusian social engineering (p.187).

    Chapter 16 explains the economic reasons for coups d' etat, whether Marcos in the Phillipines, Batista, Somoza, or Trujillo (pp. 236-7). Once a puppet ruler in s country tries to counteract its exploitation, its goodbye. Page 238 tells how "foreign aid" is used to support American companies moving their factories and machinery to foreign countries. Page 240 explains why Vietnam (like Korea) was a limited "unwinnable" war.

    On November 22, 1963 JFK was removed from office by a powerful group that wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam, and increase government spending (p.257). Pages 261-4 answers those who mistakenly claim JFK did not want to withdraw military forces from Vietnam. Prouty presents information from the public record and his personal experience. NSAM#263 shows that JFK did plan to withdraw military personnel from Vietnam in 1963. The death of JFK changed the war in Indochina from low-intensity to a major operation. Page 291 lists the many things done as standard security procedure which were NOT done on 11-22-1963. If the Warren Report is wrong on any key point, then it is false. Governor Connally contradicted the key point of the Warren Report to his dying day.

    The assassination of JFK demonstrated that most major events of world significance are masterfully planned and orchestrated by an elite coterie of enormously powerful people (p.334). You can read Jim Marrs' "Rule by Secrecy". The August 31, 1983 downing of Korean Air flight 007 resulted in the largest Defense Department budget ever passed in peacetime.

    By A customer on December 24, 1998
    "The Truth Shall Set You Free" - Plaque at CIA's entrance

    These words of St. John are displayed at CIA's Head Quarters in Langley, VA. The DCI, (Director of Central Intelligence), Allen Dulles, was not known for his ability to write good "original" material... At one time, he commissioned one E. Howard Hunt to ghost write for him. That might be likened to a liar who hires a thief to tell the truth! Colonel Leroy Fletcher Prouty was not cast from the same "mold" that produced the likes of Colson, MacGruder, Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Liddy, Mitchell, Hoover, LeMay, Lansdale, and all the rest... No, he was cast from a very different mold... a mold of integrity and dedication to his country, the United States of America.

    Imagine a patriotic young man, who enlists into the military, sees combat as a subordinate on the front lines, is commissioned by his superiors (as they recognized the leadership capabilities that he possessed), and is eventually placed in a newly created position: Chief of Special Operations, as an adjunct to his previous title of "Focal Point Officer/Military Liaison" in support of all CIA Clandestine Operations, as per National Security Council Directive #5412. It is from this very perspective that the good Colonel speaks... and he does, in fact, speak the truth.

    I would do a disservice to those who seek an accurate account of the CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate JFK, if I failed to mention the following:

    Those who criticize or attack the content of this most important "work" of Fletcher, have failed to understand that: "In the interest of a LEGITIMATE National Security Agenda" many covert activities were necessary to insure the continued security of the United States. In such instances any and all of the brave men and women, be they CIA, military, or civilian personnel, who have engaged in such activity, including Fletcher Prouty, are to be commended for their heroism and dedication to the freedom of us all, as unpalatable as many of these activities may seem to those of us who have only known "peace" in our home land. Without the work of the many "human assets" whose dedication to preserving our security at times included, what is euphemistically called "Black Ops"-- we would not be free today to speak of these issues. In this context, "Black Ops" can be seen as a necessary, albeit "unfortunate choice" - However, choosing the lesser of two or more evils MUST be made at times.

    At what point does one say "enough is enough?" I believe Colonel Prouty's insight is extremely acute because of the honesty of the man AND the unique "position" he held at the fulcrum of the meeting point between the military, industrial and intelligence complex, of the United States. If one who is in such a position:

    1. "Knows the signature of black ops" from years of experience;

    2. Witnesses the "breakdown" of the Law mandated by Congress as a "Control Mechanism" -- i.e., the NSC's ability to DIRECT the activities of the intelligence community;

    3. Ultimately recognizes that the removal of the main member of the NSC, President John F. Kennedy, was saturated with the "fingerprints" of a very carefully orchestrated "coup d'etat";

    Then, (if such an individual is a true patriot), he is under an obligation to "right the wrongs" to the best of his ability... even if it may mean speaking of things that, despite their truth, will tend to strain the credibility of the messenger.

    I applaud Colonel Prouty's courage, dedication, wisdom, excellent reportage, attention to detail, and finally, his relentless committment... He is an excellent messenger.

    In the words of Jim Garrison: "Do not forget your dying king..."

    GO_SECURE

    Gregory Burnham

    VISAC

    By [email protected] on February 24, 1999
    Constitutional Implications of the JFK Assassination

    A recent poll taken by CNBC and a "news-eum" shows that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the 6th most important event of the twentieth century. How or why those polled justify this choice is not clear. But anyone familiar with American history, American culture, and the myths and assumptions most Americans carry as a foundation of their beliefs -- can deduce the relevance of November 22, 1963 and its implications.

    Every school kid is taught that we live in a country where there is no need for coup d'etat. We don't assassinate our leaders; we retire them at the voting booth. In this, derives the faith we have in all our other institutions, and especially, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From the dawn of our individual consciousness, we are made to believe and assume that we are "safe," that we can think and say and do as we please, so long as we don't tread on the rights of others. And every school kid learns by rote the Preamble to the Constitution -- "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . . ."

    So for thirty-five years, most of us have been living in some form of illusion and denial. We were told and made to accept the story that the President of the United States was killed by a single, crazed person -- a relative nobody, an insect. The Warren Commission Report assured a majority of people over some part of those 35 years that our institutions are safe. It attempted to assure us, among other things, that our public officials continue to be honest; that our judges continue to value and protect Justice and Truth above everything else; that our policemen and local officials can be relied upon to protect us; and that the government, when it tells us to send the flower of our youth to war, does so for good reason. In a way, the Report was a means of continuing the myths that we all believe, especially, that "We the People" are the ultimate source of authority and power in our government.

    Unfortunately for the authors of the 26-volume Report -- but fortunately for the rest of us -- it has lost its credibility. That credibility began to erode almost as soon as the Report was published, as Jim Garrison, District Attorney of New Orleans parish, resurrected his investigation into the activities and actors of the building at Lafayette and Camp streets. Almost from the beginning, the work of Garrison and his staff was hampered by the seemingly unexplainable efforts of the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency. Since that time, we have been slowly awakened to the possible involvement of as many as three elected presidents in the Warren Commission coverup, and there are echoes of something worse, something more sinister.

    We owe this awakening in part to the efforts of Garrison, and to the contribution of the man who anonymously assisted him in that investigation of the late 60's. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, the "Mr. X" of Oliver Stone's "JFK," retired from the CIA not more than a year after the assassination. New facts in the assassination have slowly accumulated, partly due to the efforts of Prouty, Garrison, an emerging army of quiet and persistent historical researchers, investigative journalists, and -- yes -- even elected officials.

    Now there are several variations on the conspiracy theme, which polls show is now accepted or suspected by as much as 78 percent of the American population. Some believed that Castro was the source of the plot to kill JFK. Others accepted the most reasonable theory that organized crime, namely Carlos Marcello, was the dark force behind the assassination. How comforting. We can now change the TV channel to "The Brady Bunch" -- we are still safe as long as the identity of the bogeyman that robbed us of a President and half a century's history doesn't challenge our basic beliefs in the institutions of government. And of course, the institutions of the powerful are also safe from a skeptical and inquiring public.

    Other theories are more troubling, and as Prouty tells us apologetically, advocates of these theories perennially suffer the labels of "conspiracy nut" and "paranoid." But Prouty was the post-war pilot who shuttled dignitaries to the major conferences of World War II and facilitated the "rescue" of Nazi intelligence officers from their potential Soviet captors. He was on Okinawa when the thousands of tons of war materiel suddenly deemed unnecessary for an invasion of Japan were unexplainably shipped to Haiphong Harbor for the VietMinh. He was privy to the CIA's covert operations from that point forward which slowly enmired America in a war without strategic objectives -- the war in Vietnam. He was in the midst of CIA staff who planned the covert initiatives against Castro, notably Operation Mongoose and the Bay of Pigs. He presents detailed, plausible explanations of the reasons why these efforts failed. This provides a basis for a most incredible argument that a "High Cabal" of individuals and agencies -- above politics, even above government itself -- set in motion the decisions, events, and coordination that enabled the murder of a President.

    Prouty was Oliver Stone's closest consultant in forging the epic movie "JFK." The underlying theory of the movie has been labeled "Conspiracy-a-Go-Go," the essence of a plot masterminded by a "High Cabal." The features of such a plot are merely hinted by the movie. Viewers may take away from the film an awakened sense of suspicion mixed with disbelief, and this does not detract from the film as good cinematic art. But Prouty's book offers some solid history and autobiography. It doesn't digest as impassioned rhetoric or the rantings of an extremist paranoid. It comes off as the ruminations and reflections of a witness who has both feet on solid ground.

    The author consistently reminds us that an explanation of Kennedy's murder must be grounded in economic reasoning. "Who stood to benefit?" "Why?" He tells us that he doesn't want to concern himself with the identities of the contract assassins themselves, and indeed he informs us that it is in the nature of this underworld thick with professional "mechanics" that their identities may never be entirely known. Instead, he provides us a review of history and foreign policy during the initial and most frightening stages of the Cold War, and he reminds us that individuals are at the core of power where decisions of enormous scope are made frequently without either the participation or the knowledge of the public. So rather than point the finger explicitly at conspirators -- whose identities may be suggested or mentioned as part of the book's historical message -- he leaves it to the reader's judgment.

    I cannot fault the book for its failure to present solutions. Ted Kazynski, in his "Manifesto," levels accusations against the same dark, if not anonymous forces, and most people will overlook the scribblings of someone diagnosed as criminally insane. But we cannot ignore any longer the existence of a "power elite" and the imperatives of large-scale global organization which support its existence. If we wish to live in society and partake of the benefits of a civilization thousands of years in the making, we have to accept these distortions to the democratic myths that saturate our consciousness and perceptions. Offering a practical prescription for controlling those forces was never Prouty's objective in writing this book. More aptly, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" is a profound wake-up call.

    Prescriptions do not come easily. Those interested in what should prove to be a long and protracted debate should read Gerry Spence's "Give Me Liberty." But one cannot address the problem unless he or she is aware of it. To this end, Prouty's book provides sharp historical focus.

    Randy Bednorz

    By [email protected] on September 11, 1998
    This vital work is a MUST READ for ALL Americans.

    Col. Prouty's most informative book exposes the vicious, greedy, and super-anonymous hand of the "High Cabal" as none other has dared attempt. It clearly demonstrates the bizarre and disgusting chain of events (created by the OSS and CIA) that began before the end of WWII; events that led to President Eisenhower's unprecedented farewell address (and warning) to the nation. These events also led to the creation of President John F. Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum #263, which called for de-escalation of the Vietnam War and withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam; the memorandum that ultimately led to his death.

    This work exposes the planned genocide of millions of innocent, non-combatant Southeast Asian civilians, under the guise of such noble sounding terms as "pacification." Readers learn that none of these attacks on the peace-loving Southeast Asians were undertaken to protect any nation or preserve any ideology. Rather, they were thrust upon the Southeast Asians to further feed the exceedingly bulging pockets of greedy international bankers and the insidious military-industrial complex. These events also served to further perpetuate the High Cabal's iron-fisted, though ultra-secret, control over American government, among others, and the world economy. Vietnam is but one homeland that the High Cabal has decimated to serve its own purposes. There have indeed been many others throughout history. The question is: who's next? Perhaps us? Every American should read this vitally important book. And, think about it...

    Hats off to Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. A truly great American! I proudly salute you, Sir.

    By Mike Bartus on February 23, 2000
    A great book among others

    I want those readers who have not read this book to read my opinions below.

    First, this is a great book simply because Prouty has provided more inside ammunition for researchers to mine the depths of our secret government. This is the government of men who controlled the secret programs of assassination, the secret slush funds of counterintelligence, the operatives who dilligently carried out their secret orders,their programs of stealth, quasi-law breaking, and other publically inaccessible information. Prouty's book quite correctly points the finger at Dulles, Lansdale, and others in CIA, who were paranoid about communism and Castro. They viewed Kennedy as a traitor and he stood in the way of the war machine they were operating, both overtly, but especially covertly. The termination of raids to Cuba, the failure of follow-up air support at the Bay of Pigs, the promise not to invade Cuba after the Cuban missile crisis, were all blamed on Kennedy. The firing of Dulles, Cabell, and Bissell contributed to the intelligence community wanting JFK removed from command. It is astonishing that so few have commented on the contrast between now and then: in 1963 we were fed lies depicting Oswald as a crazed nut, a loner, and defector. These days we have mountains of evidence he was much more than these pictures of him. He associated with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, anti-castro cubans, and others. He returned to the US without a hitch, but in those days a defector would have been hounded and closely watched. If this were true,then why wasn't the FBI catching all his associations and illegal activities? Prouty has produced the superstructure of the conspiracy by showing the history, and context of the cold war and the CIA

    If one can view a supposed loser like Oswald pulling off this assassination as being totally ridiculous, then one can entertain other possibilities. Why was Lyndon Johnson reversing NSAMs so quickly concerning Vietnam? Why did Johnson appoint Warren, Dulles, Ford, et al? Why wasn't the Dulles appointment perceived as a conflict of interest? Here is the fired subordinate investigating the dead boss! Dulles definitely kept information from the panel, especially about the assassination plots being orchestrated by the CIA, with the Mafia as the gunmen. In this connection, another book of importance should be read and that is by Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. It is a difficult book because he describes a quasi government,over-and-above government institutions, which controlled the plot and the outcome. This corresponds to some observations about Prouty's book, which fails to name names. But that isn't quite correct. Prouty does name many persons who were in command positions and had the power to orchestrate the assassination.Two prominent persons were Dulles and Lansdale. Any clever and alert reader who watched Stone's movie JFK will see a very short (about 2 second)sequence in the movie where General X is making the call to the network to carry out the plot and kill JFK. On his desk is a nameplate which clearly says "Lansdale".

    The Prouty book establishes that Kennedy "was getting Americans out of Vietnam, he confirmed that he was moving away from the pattern of Cold War confrontation in favor of detente.He asked congress to cut the defense budget.Major programs were being phased out. As a result, pressure from several fronts began to to build against the young President.The pressure came from those most affected by cuts in the military budget, in the NASA space program, and in the enormous potential cost-and profit-of the Vietnam War."

    It is very ironic that his enemies in government brought about detente with the Soviet Union. The notion that Oswald was a lone killer is preposterous and if it were true, why would the full truth be kept from us so long after the collapse of communism? This was the facile justification for locking up the evidence until 2025: that our outrage against a communist conspiracy would demand a war against the communists. The real truth was to control the information to the American public, so as to cover their tracks, and establish a legend to the JFK killing.

    Everyone should read this book. I heartily recommend this book to anyone seeking insight into the question about insiders being involved in the killing.

    By [email protected] Tim Canale on January 6, 1999
    Highly Recommended!!

    Prouty gives us the point of view of both an ace historian and an insider taking us from the origins of the cold war up through the assassination of President Kennedy, and then on up through tomorrow night's evening news. It's haunting how the power elite's patterns of military strategies and propaganda tactics of that era correlate with many of today's current events. Just the other day somebody on TV was screaming, "Why wasn't there an objective in Desert Fox?!" while at the same time I'm reading the answer in Prouty's book, yet the book was written 6 or 7 years ago.

    This isn't a book only on the Kennedy assassination, but Kennedy's bold decisions which led to his death and the forces behind it all. He explains clearly the post-H-bomb military strategy of aiding both sides of the fence in Vietnam to win the REAL war - big business. We get an inside look at the Dulles brothers and their direct line to the "High Cabal" which overrules even the White House.

    I once heard Col. Prouty say in an interview that he's never read a page of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of hearings on the assassination. He said he didn't have to because he knew who did it. I thought that was a bit odd, but after reading this book I understand what he means. Prouty had worked with these guys! These are the same forces that overthrew the Philipines, Greece, Iran, Bulgaria and Guatemala (to name just a few).

    Out of all the books written about the Kennedy assassination this is easily one of the best. Check out his website!

    By A customer on October 22, 1999
    A disturbing and enlightening insight into the Cold War

    This book uncovers the many reasons for the Korean & Vietnam conflicts. It clearly implicates the OSS/CIA during the end of World War II in their involvement in providing supplies for the Koreans and then later for the Vietminh. Colonel Prouty indicates how the CIA are quite often able to live in a secret world while manipulating other federal agencies to their desired ends. When Kennedy took office in 1960 he inherited $6.5 billion in surplus from the previous administration. When he planned not to include a major defense manufacturer to build the TFX and gave that bid to General Dynamics the CIA and their constituents were vey upset. Prouty points out that Kennedy never had any intention in building great offensive systems for war. Kennedy wanted to create a united peace in the world through his reelection by implementing domestic policies that would focus on the problems "at home." He also desired better foreign relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy planned to bring 1000 troops home from Viet Nam by Christmas of 1963. McNamara's report on the Indonesian situation indicated that all military units in Vietnam could be home by Kennedy's due date of 1965. But major corporations having an investment in the manufacturing of war machines do not thrive during peacetime. This was a critical area for Kennedy because of his change in the national policy. Prouty shows that the President's shift prompted many businessmen to seriously think about Kennedy's position as president. This book answers the whys of the cold war period as well as the assassination motives. Prouty's book points out the wasted time in focusing on a "patsy" as the lone assasin of JFK. In all probability Oswald was a soldier carrying out commands from his superior officers not fully knowing the extent of the damage. L. Fletcher Prouty wrote this history from his personal experiences with covert operations and his involvement with government agencies. After reading this book the author leaves one feeling disturbed, yet enlightened by the rich insight he has provided. I am grateful to Colonel Prouty for his willingness to share his knowledge so that many may have an alternative view and perhaps a better understanding regarding the Cold War era.

    By Jon W. Davis on October 20, 2004
    A Sobering Look Into the Past of JFK and the CIA

    Prouty was well postioned to tell his story as seen from inside the intelligence community. Unknown to most people Kennedy challenged the hegemony of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve. In the summer of 1963 Kennedy signed an executive order to create 4 billion dollars in United States Notes, in direct competion to Federal Reserve Notes. Why? The United States Notes were based on the government silver stores and their creation did not create interest payements to the world bankers and owners of the Fed. Bills in denominations of $2, $5, $10, and $20's were authorized and the $2's and $5's were printed and in circulation. The $10's and $20 were being printed when Kenndy was killed. In Johnsons first month in office the US Notes were recalled from circulation. Go to any good coin shop and ask to buy a 1963 US Note. See it for yourself! The one gem in Prouty's book that ties Kennedy to this issue is a few sentences where he discusses Kennedy sending Robert McNamara to meet with the Governors of the Federal Reserve to let them know that there are going to be big changes in the nations money system. There is very little information out there about Kennedy and money and Prouty clearly knew there was a connection. Why is the topic of Kennedy and the money he created so obscure and unknown? The only other president in the history of the country to create US Notes directly from the authority of the US Government was Lincoln with his greenbacks during the civil war. The only two presidents to buck the money powers were both assasinated in office. I think Prouty shows a possible origin of one of the smoking guns.

    By A customer on January 4, 1998
    The key to the mystery of the crime of the century.

    As a United States Marine in the Vietnam war, I never challenged my country's intentions to stem the tide against communist aggression throughout the world. After my extended tour of duty in that war zone, I came home to ponder how we became involved in such a protracted war that divided the country (USA) so. It all points back to the tradgic event on 22 November 1963. With the death of our beloved President Kennedy, the powers to be had free reign to curtail the planned withdrawl of the small amount of troops in that zone. Only 16,000 at that time. This book is an excellent reference to how real events were managed to create so much grief for the people of South Vietnam and the United States. As a former Marine who left enough of his friends to pay the ultimate sacrifice, I highly recommend Colonel Prouty's fine book. "Those of us who made it have an obligation to find the goodness in man and make this world a better place in which to live." Long live the memory of JFK.

    Semper Fidelis

    Ronald E. Springer on September 22, 2005
    America has Waited a Long Time to Hear the Truth...

    Finally, those involved are getting old enough not to place concern about their own welfare above truth anymore.

    This book provides so many connections, such a depth of behind the scenes knowledge and inner workings of the specific programs operating at the time, you can't help but be bowled over.

    ***Note: Anyone interested in the Kennedy Assassination should realize that there is a "misinformation plant" in the Library Journal review department. Every honest book on the subject has been unconvincingly discredited by them, while they praise and try to steer you towards known flake CIA-financed writers such as Gerald Posner.

    It's rather common to hear of wrongdoing by the CIA I saw a graph recently that showed American citizen's belief in their government plummeting after the Kennedy Assassination. Almost no one accepted the Warren Commission Report and such a cover up has casted doubt on our government ever since.

    This "High Cabal" as Churchill called them obviously doesn't start with the CIA, or the Federal Reserve. It predates Christianity, but it's quite simple. There are bums who seek handouts and never try to rise, and there are bums who gain a position over others but still yearn for that same handout, taking it by force, by skimming, whatever is necessary to defeat justice, honor and civility. These are not great men and they will not be remembered like an Edison or a Ford. They are the most creative parasites on the planet, and the most deeply engrained.

    Currency control has changed EIGHT times since America's inception. The most vocal fighter against irrational banking was Andrew Jackson; not Kennedy or Lincoln (google "Jackson Bank Veto"). He fought and defeated in his time what has morphed into the Federal Reserve Bank. Before the Civil War, such bankers were buying politicians, planting press stories, steering elections, stealing freedoms, killing people--anything to assure a fascist cushion between themselves and existence.

    Do we ever hear anything bad about the Federal Reserve? In Jackson's time, they were entrenched 16 years deep and it was difficult to rout them out then. They did try to kill him. Now they are ninety years deep. They have owned many Presidents, they control the Justice and State Departments, and the CIA secretly furthers their agenda.

    Nothing happens at the Assassination Level without their approval. In today's world, America is struggling in recession (bankruptcy) mostly due to the $360 Billion we now pay to the Fed for their generous "Debt-Money" System, and that is an exponentially increasing burden. EVERY dollar in our country has interest being paid on it as if it were borrowed! Due to this, bankruptcy for America is a mathematical certainty. (Imagine if you had to pay interest not just on every dollar you owed, but on every dollar you made! America IS!)

    With changes in the laws, soon none of us will be permitted to walk away from our debts and start over--as if our hard economic times is our own personal fault.

    We are all about to become debt slaves, as they intend. If you want to have a chance at recovery, if you want your kids to have a chance at a decent future, join me and I'll give you the Moral Armor neccessary to beat down these parasites and restore America to what it was meant to be. They CAN be defeated, but not without YOUR empowerment. If you can't stand up or are afraid to, I'll show you how. Invest in yourself right now and let's save this ship!

    Joshua Lewis on October 4, 2014
    They must be pretty well organized

    Hard to believe for various reasons. First, other reviewers have commented on the "logic" of the author's arguments. There are, however, numerous fallacies in the book. Lots of, "X happened, and then Y happened, THEREFORE..." but the conclusions are never proven and don't follow logically from the premises. Second, the author doesn't seem to notice some of the absurdities in his thesis when applied to November of 1963. For example, we're told that an international elite working above the leaders elected to the highest offices of government have created and controlled world wide war efforts, power transfers, government overthrows, and economic and monetary conditions among other things, since the end of WWII.

    They must be pretty well organized, financed and intelligent to do so. Yet, they were unable to ensure the election of Nixon in the closest election in history up to that point?

    Seems odd to be able to start wars but not rig an election that was lost by .02 percent. And, if that isn't a good enough example, let's try another one.

    The author gives us several photos in the book of the Dallas "Police" who transported a band of vagabonds on the day JFK was killed and points out the facts that their uniforms aren't standard DPD issue, their uniforms don't match, and their caps and weapons are not standard.

    The obvious allusion is that they weren't real policemen and were somehow a part of or hired by this power elite who operated to kill on that day. Yet, wouldn't a "High Cabal" capable of all I mentioned above, have made sure to procure authentic police uniforms, caps, badges and weapons for such an important day, leaving nothing to chance, and preparing for every contingency? It seems like a very sloppy oversight by a group with such limitless powers and ability.

    These are just two examples of many where common sense seems to trump the passionate arguments of the author. That being said, there is some interesting information in the book on the inner workings of the CIA and government especially during the Vietnam War. If you are going to read it, just be on the lookout for the faulty logic and use common, critical thinking skills to help sort possibility from probability.

    Gary P on January 2, 2013
    A few nice nuggets burried in the muck.

    In "JFK", Fletcher Prouty shares numerous fascinating observations garnered from his position as a mid-grade officer in what I call the "Conglomerate of Covert Cold Warriors" (OSS/CIA/Military Intelligence/Special Operations/etc) from the 1940s until the early 1960s. Some of the conclusions he draws, however, are completely unsubstantiated and require a real stretch of the imagination.

    Chief among these is the existence of some sort of secret "high cabal" of bankers and industrialists (but not the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations, Freemasons, Trilateral Commision, Pentaverate,or any other previously speculated secret organization) which has been manipulating the governments of the world into conflicts large and small for at least the last hundred years for the purpose of generating profits on the sale and/or financing of war materials.

    Prouty further supposes that the CIA and KGB were the two principal levers with which this supposed cabal have exerted their influence on the world in the post-WWII era.

    Prouty also suggests that the Korean and Vietnam Wars were prearranged prior to the close of World War II, and that everything that happened in Vietnam from '45 on was part of a master plan by the OSS/CIA to set the table for a protracted large-scale US engagement in a later decade. Kennedy's intent to deviate from this carefully and painstaking constructed plan for Vietnam supposedly was the instigation for the high cabal to orchestrate his murder.

    While Prouty brings to light many interesting connections between the "Conglomerate" and world events, the need to attribute credit/blame for everything to some "invisible elite" group of power brokers who pull the strings of the CIA is difficult to accept. It seems to me that the fact that the CIA was a very insular group, created and led by a small cadre of extremely ambitious ideologues who operated with a nearly unlimited budget and almost no accountability means they were likely responsible on their own for most things that Prouty blames on "the cabal."

    At times Prouty contradicts himself, suggesting on one hand that various apparent CIA miscalculations that drag us farther into the Vietnam war were actually intentional, while later claiming that the CIA were surprised when the same actions did not yield any strategic gains.

    One last criticism I have is that Prouty often repeats himself. Certain themes are addressed over and over, with little or no additional detail brought to the table. Some passages were so similar to ones in previous chapters I wondered if my kindle was malfunctioning and moving me back to pages I'd already read. I blame this more on the editors than Prouty; they should have restructured his ideas more logically and could have cut 50-100 pages from this book without removing any value.

    If you can look past the cabal angle and sloppy organization, there are some interesting ideas presented. Prouty makes a strong case that JFK intended to take the country in a direction in Vietnam that was counter to the aims of the "Conglomerate" and that certain individuals were conspicuously well prepared to reverse that policy in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. He also fairly criticizes the failure of the "Pentagon Papers" to put the the dramatic shift in Vietnam policy that occurred in late November, 1963, in the context of of a violent change in the presidency. His theory that the CIA-sponsored relocation of ~1,000,0000 Tonkinese Vietnamese from the North to the Mekong Delta in the South spawned the Viet Cong is compelling, whether or not you buy his supposition that it was a calculated result.

    The fact that Prouty is the mysterious "Mr X" from Garrisons book "On the Trail of the Assassins" and Stone's movie "JFK" is reason enough for any assassination buff to read this book despite the shortcomings. That there are other interesting and salient nuggets burried in the muck of the "high cabal" theme is a bonus.

    A customer on September 5, 1999
    Prouty long on entrigue - short on facts.

    I once had the opportunity to ask Col. Prouty (via e-mail) if he had retained any of the orders he states he received, or could produce another officer who shared his perspective on events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Instead of answers, what I got in return was a geriatric tirade and a sermon on respect for the men who have served this great nation. His thesis on the Bay of Pigs, given documentation now available (_Bay of Pigs Declassified_, 1998 National Security Archive, [...]) demonstrates that, where facts are concerned, Prouty is victim to his own perspective. Prouty reports that JFK was advised through CIA channels that Castro's air force had to be disabled prior to the April 17, Bay of Pigs attack, by Cuban exiles/CIA forces. Prouty states that JFK gave the green light for the initial April 15 attack, which decommissioned all but three of Castro's T-33 aircraft, and conveys that when JFK was advised on April 16 that three planes remained, he authorized their destruction with a second wave attack. Col. Prouty contends that McGeorge Bundy made a secure call to General Charles Cabell (brother of the Dallas mayor when JFK was assassinated, Earle Cabell) giving the president's approval, but that Cabell delayed deployment of the exile air force at Nicaragua. The Colonel contends that Cabell's delay in passing the order was the reason Kennedy later had him relieved of duty, and that the Mayor of Dallas retaliated for his brother's dismissal by participating in JFK's assassination.

    Prouty makes the case that Cabell foiled any chances of success for the maritime operation by delaying the order for the B-26 aircraft to return to Cuba and destroy three remaining T-33s. But, Prouty is way off the mark on this one. Recently released documentation proves JFK wanted deniabilty and did not authorize the second wave of air attacks. While a question may remain as to whether the CIA adequately briefed Kennedy on the importance of the second wave attacks by the Cuban exiles, there is little doubt that whomever or whatever caused Prouty to print his version of the events will not contribute to Prouty's reputation for accuracy when confidently stating things as fact.

    In a realm where hard evidence is a must, Prouty tells interesting tales. If his accounts of the events are to be believed, Col Prouty should furnish us military sources who agree with the Colonel, or concede that historically he simply cannot prove his assertions.

    Evelyn Uyemura VINE VOICE on September 15, 2013
    Half Credible, Half Not

    What a sad mess of a book. It is really unfortunate that the people who were active adults in 1963 are now approaching their dotage, 50 years later, and in addition, that few serious publishers will touch the more controversial points of view with a 10-foot pole. As a result, we get books like this, from someone who might actually know something, but who can't write or edit a book into shape so that we can tell whether it makes any sense.

    Prouty has several bugs in his bonnet:

    1. There is a secret Cabal of elites who run the entire world and have for centuries. Presidents and generals are puppets, mostly clueless as to what is really going on. (barely credible.)
    2. The fact that the earth is round, plus Malthus and Darwin, are the keys to the past 500 years of history, and the source of private property, colonialism, and pretty much all evil. (not credible to me.)
    3. Before WW2 had even ended, the US had already decided that its ally, the USSR, was going to be its next enemy and that Germany would be its ally, and started acting on this in the closing days of the war. The reason for this decision is that we, like all countries, need perpetual war to maintain sovereignty. (semi-credible--I doubt that any of this was conscious, if it happened at all.)
    4. A decision was made in 1945 that after WW2, we would next fight in Korea and Vietnam, and we sent weapons there for that purpose. (not credible to me. Yes, we may have sent weapons there, but I really doubt that there was a master plan in place.)

    By now you're probably wondering what any or all of this has to do with the assassination of JFK. Well, that's the problem--this book is so all over the place that he spends essentially the whole book on deep background stuff, and the actual explanation of what this has to do with Kennedy is scattered throughout the book. He keeps bringing the story up to 1963 in every chapter, and then backtracking again and again. And again!

    However, for all its problems as a book, the info contained herein meshes with several other books I've read recently that all point to the fact that Kennedy was moving from a Cold Warrior to a peacenik, (elsewhere attributed to his taking LSD with his mistress Mary Meyer. Who knows?) He *did* found a thing called the Peace Corps. He did give a speech at an American university that is called his Peace speech. Supposedly, he and Khrushchev were sort of pen pals, and they had both stared into the nuclear abyss and decided to make love not war.

    Oh yes, another of Prouty's big ideas is that the weapons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a huge error on the part of the Cabal/Elite, since it made normal war impossible, hence a turn to guerrilla warfare by proxy. Again, the belief that everything is part of a master plan. The outcome is valid, but the idea of an invisible hand behind the scenes stage-managing all this is not reasonable to me.

    Is it credible that the CIA could have been involved in Kennedy's assassination? On this point, I think the answer is yes. The old objection that people wouldn't be able to keep quiet if there were a conspiracy is pretty much moot if we're talking about the CIA, since by definition, these are guys who could do unimaginable things, have a cigarette, and then never speak of it again.

    I think there is pretty decent evidence that Oswald was connected to the CIA (The defection and then un-defection in and of itself is pretty incredible, and his statement that he was the patsy is more likely if he was in fact a patsy, than if he were a either a nut job or a Castro sympathizer. Both of those types want credit!)

    And this book also confirms the feeling that I often get that in fact the US has many of the characteristics of a fascist state, minus the concentration camps for Jews. It is true that we have wrought havoc in many other people's countries, that we maintain a near-constant state of war, and that *if* a president tried to go in a different direction, there are forces within the military-industrial-intelligence complex that might both want and be capable of taking them out.

    I am fairly knowledgeable about the assassination scenarios, but I found this book rough going, because it goes into a lot of political detail about the internal politics of Vietnam as well as very detailed descriptions of Washington politics. Perhaps if you are a bit older than me (I was 11 in 1963), or more knowledgeable about all the names and politics of that time, it would all come together. But a good editor would have helped tremendously to make it accessible to the general public.

    Curt Butler on March 2, 2008
    Who was Maj. Gen. E.G. ?

    In Oliver Stone's film "JFK" in the Mall Scene meeting between D.A. Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) and "Man X" (played by Donald Sutherland), a flashback scene presented a nameplate from the desk of an Air Force military general speaking on the phone, and partialy showing his name as Maj/Gen. E.G. (unknown)?

    Who was Stone attempting to make reference to and cast aspersions upon Maj. General E.G. Lansdale?

    Does anybody know?? Will check back from time-to-time is see "IF" any comments are posted to my inquiry. Thanks!

    R. Anderson on March 28, 2005
    Completely Ludicrus

    Contrary to popular belief today, Kennedy was a cold warrior. There is no evidence at all that he was (in his second term, if he even got one) going to end the cold war, or pull out of Vietnam. Michael Lind in his book 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' addresses this issue, and points out that the record clearly shows otherwise.

    Several of the people who claim that Kennedy told them he was going to pull out of Vietnam revealed this information in the late 60's after the war had become traumatic for the country. Robert McNamara (one of the original architects of the Vietnam War), who has speculated for years that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam, admits that Kennedy never told him he was going to pull out.

    In an interview with Walter Cronkite a few months before he was assassinated Kennedy said (about Vietnam): "I think it would be a mistake to withdraw." Oliver Stone (cleverly), only shows bits and pieces of the interview at the beginning of JFK. Editing the interview to make it look like Kennedy was going to withdraw. In fact, the day he was assassinated Kennedy gave a speech endorsing our involvement in Vietnam. The claim that Kennedy was going to pull out of Vietnam is speculation at best. Go to : [...]

    This post details many of the myths surrounding JFK's policy stances, and shows that (by today's standards) Kennedy (most likely) would have been a moderate Republican. There was no motive (as Prouty claims) to kill Kennedy.

    Also go to: [...]

    For some more of Prouty's crackpot opinions.

    Kennedy was a cold warrior: he was conspicuously absent (as a representative from Massachusetts) when the House of Representatives voted to censure Joseph McCarthy (he even praised McCarthy on several occasions). He ran against Nixon in 1960 on the missile gap (i.e. we were behind the Soviets in the number of ICBM's). He said in his inaugural address: "......Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Doesn't sound to me like he was going to "bug out" of Vietnam.

    Also, check out: [...]

    This further debunks the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam.

    [Nov 01, 2017] The Secret Team The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World by L. Fletcher Prouty

    Notable quotes:
    "... Having studied conspiracy for over 30 years while working in government and, I now discover, serving as an unwitting foot-soldier of the secret team (I worked in intelligence, special operations and "peacetime operations" work among other things), I was missing a few pieces of the conspiracy puzzle which all fell into place neatly by the time I finished this book. Not only that, but the bizarre shenanigans of the Intelligence Community, particularly the FBI, CIA and, to a lesser extent, DHS during the 2016 election and the coterie of retired military men selected to serve in President Trump's cabinet all took on greater significance to me due to the revelations of this book. ..."
    Nov 01, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    Ranger 4.0 out of 5 stars

    Outstanding long suppressed conspiracy history of the CIA finally re-released in a revised although not updated edition

    This is the apparently heavily edited re-release of one of the most mysterious conspiracy books and CIA exposes ever written, "The Secret Team" by L. Fletcher Prouty. First published in 1972 by Prentice-Hall, the original ran to three quick editions before disappearing completely from public view by 1975. Many believed it was blacklisted and suppressed by the CIA In this way it resembles that other conspiracy classic, Professor Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope." In fact, if one had the patience and desire (both of these books are quite long, convoluted and "wordy") I would recommend reading them in historical sequence. The revelations would be startling. And this is one reason why I like "The Secret Team" so much.

    Having studied conspiracy for over 30 years while working in government and, I now discover, serving as an unwitting foot-soldier of the secret team (I worked in intelligence, special operations and "peacetime operations" work among other things), I was missing a few pieces of the conspiracy puzzle which all fell into place neatly by the time I finished this book. Not only that, but the bizarre shenanigans of the Intelligence Community, particularly the FBI, CIA and, to a lesser extent, DHS during the 2016 election and the coterie of retired military men selected to serve in President Trump's cabinet all took on greater significance to me due to the revelations of this book.

    Anyway, I do recommend this but not without some warnings:

    All that being said, I loved this book but it's definitely not for everyone. It would make a fine addition to any collection of Cold War, CIA, intelligence, conspiracy and/or Indochina War history. Ignore the one-star and two-star reviews by people who obviously never read it or are incapable of understanding it. And if you aren't prepared for the meaty stuff you find between its covers you can always give it a bad review and go back to Info-Wars, Coast-to-Coast Radio, the Truther blog-o-sphere or wherever else you came from. Or better yet, do some honest research and discover there is real treasure between these covers. Recommended.

    By Boyce Hart on July 22, 2010
    The Critical Sinews btw CIA and other Gov. Agencies

    What does it mean when we say " the CIA did such and such an action"? Just what is the CIA, a whole or a part? Given its emphasis on compartmentalization, is it accurate to say "the CIA was heavily involved in the JFK assassination" or would it be more accurate to say parts of the CIA were? Moreover, who is the CIA, and what are the powers behind it? Also, perhaps most importantly, what were the relations between the CIA and other parts of government, and how and when did these relationships change and evolve. Were these changes done democratically or secretly. These last two questions are the essence of this book. Yes, it is true as one reviewer noted, this book could have used an editor. Some times it has the feel of a collection of speeches, but not always. So why the five instead of 4. The subject matter-- in particular the last two questions typed above-- are just too rarely mentioned and discussed. This book really helps us understand the curiously evolving nervous system of the CIA btw 1947 and 1963, as very very few other books do. It sees the inception of the CIA in 1947 as just the first step, and makes it clear that later developments were neither willed nor pre-ordained by many of the elected officials who wrote the National Security Act of 1947.

    The only other book that really addresses this BETWEEN WORLD--i.e. between CIA and other government agencies is one of the Three most important books published in the last 50 years IMO. Thy Will Be Done: Nelson Rockefeller, Evangelism, and the Conquest of the Amazon In the Age of OIl by Colby and Dennett. Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon : Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil

    Still there is one book I recommend even more than that one. This is not the current Gold Standard merely for all current JFK research. It is far more than that; it is the Gold Standard for all US Cold War History Research. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. This book is so important because it is not merely who done it but why done it. It is a book that mixes how and why of JFK and those crucial-because-contestable Cold War years 1960-63 like no other. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

    By John C. Landon on August 14, 2010
    From JFK conspiracy theories to deeper questions

    As the nature of the conspiracies behind the JFK assassination sink in a series of spontaneous questions/suspicions begin to arise in one's mind: the main one has to do with the CIA and more generally with the question of what larger unseen (political) power could bring off what the record shows.
    Here Prouty's book is an invaluable resource and one place to start to see the dark reality behind those spontaneous suspicions.

    By Amazon Customer on July 20, 2013
    The best insight to the workings of the Shadow Government

    HOW secret operations are built.

    WHERE secret operations are built (hint: it's a five-sided building).

    The WHY is just speculative. Without knowing the inner debates of the National Security State, there is no way of knowing for sure. But the concept of "New World Order" comes to mind.

    Making a New World Order is complex, but definitely doable. Over many years influential politicians, corporate leaders and religious leaders were persuaded that a new human era was possible, through the governing body of the United Nations. The thing is: how were these leaders persuaded, and by whom?

    Then comes the most outrageous operations the CIA has ever conducted - mind control, manchurian candidate research, worldwide propaganda, blackmailing key people. This will never be admitted by the Agency - or by any other agency. It must be PRIED OUT of them. This is why it's imporatant to read the book, but also important is maintaining high standards for your sources.

    By dwcrabtree on November 24, 2015
    Shadow government and the CIA infiltration of the elected government

    Great informative read by an insider of the "shadow" government.

    By Steven A. McFarland on October 30, 2009
    5 Stars, A Must Read!

    After reading the Secret Team a persons view of the world and who is actually at the reigns changes tremendously. This book is a must read for anyone who studies politics. Prouty reveals a dark and sinister world of false flag operations, swaying political views and reveals how the CIA and its allies control the US and the World. Put this together with a study of Political Ponerology and unmask the reality that has been creeping into US politics for decades!

    By nordlys on April 28, 2011
    The Secret Team

    Of the books I have read about CIA this is defenitely the most scary and gives an unbelievable amount of the many ways they have controled usa, and the rest of the world. Why do we do this, why are we always pretending we have so many enemies that we need to build up and use all the money in government to create and build weapons, bombs, drones and god knows what.
    Read this book and learn the secrets so carefully hidden from us.

    By gordon gray on September 6, 2014
    Best description of the organization and the MO of the ...

    Best description of the organization and the MO of the men who engineered the JFK assassination, by someone who was on the ground at the time..

    By Herbert L Calhoun on December 4, 2012
    The New Corporate (non-State acting) Privatized One World Order

    While we sit stunned into complete disbelief and silence trying to make sense of, understand, and decode the strongly suspected connections between the most curious political and military events of our times, this author, Colonel, L. Fletcher Prouty, in this book, "The Secret Team," has already decoded everything for us. From the JFK assassination, Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, repeated bank bust-outs (like BCCI and Silverado), the cocaine connection from Mena Arkansas to Nicaragua, the "crack" cocaine explosion in America's inner cities, the recent housing crash, and the general Wall Street sponsored financial meltdown, and now even from the wildest recesses of our collective imagination (dare I say it, maybe even 911?), Colonel Prouty, the fabled Mr. "X" in the movie "JFK," has the bureaucratic structure of all the answers here.

    What Colonel Prouty tells us is that right before our own eyes, we are experiencing a paradigm shift in international relations and world affairs, one that has quietly moved us from the "old order" where the sovereign nation and its armies and national ideologies once sat at the center of world events and predominated, into a new "One World business run corporate, privatized global order," in which "the corporate powers that be" sit on the throne in the clock tower; and where, as a result of their machinations, true national sovereignty has seeped away to the point that we say safely say, it no longer exists.

    The good Colonel tells us that the most important events of this century are taking place right before our eyes, as the Cold War era has already given way to a new age of "One World" under the control of businessmen and their hired guns, their lawyers -- rather than under the threat of military power and ideological differences. In this new, completely "privatized world order," big business, big lawyers, big bankers, big politicians, big lobbyists, and even bigger money-men, run and rule the entire world from behind a national security screen inaccessible to the average citizen. It is this paradigm shift, and the wall of secrecy that has brought us the "Secret Team" and the series of strange inexplicable events that it has skillfully orchestrated, and that keep recurring from time to time both within the U.S. and throughout the world.

    This new bureaucratic entity is called a "Secret Team" for good reasons: because like any team, it does not create its own game plan, its own rules, or its own reality. The team plays for a coach and an owner. It is the coach and the owner that writes the scripts, creates and "calls" the plays. The drama of reality that we see on the international screen is a creation of the "Power elite, as it is executed by the "secret Team." The power of the team comes from its vast intergovernmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with private industries, the military, mutual funds, and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses. The beauty of the "Secret team," is that it is not a clandestine super-planning-board, or super-general staff like as is frequently attributed to the Bilderburg Group, or the Trilateral Commission, but is a bewildering collection of ad hoc and semi-permanent action committees and networks that can come into being and then dissolve as specific needs troubles and flash-points dictate. It can create, influence or topple governments around the globe at the behest and on the whim of its coaches, "the Power Elite."

    As the Sociologist C. Wright Mills told us nearly a half century ago, the members of the "Power Elite," operate beyond national borders, beyond the reach of the public, and have no national loyalties -- or even return addresses. They operate in the shadows and run the world by remote control and by making us completely dependent upon them and their hidden machinations. Invisibly, they maneuver and jockey to control every aspect of our lives and the infrastructure and markets upon which we depend for our survival: The most important and essential among them being our ability to produce and distribute our own food, water, and energy. As a result of this dependency, and despite mythology to the contrary, Colonel Prouty tells us that we are becoming the most dependent society that has ever lived. And the future viability of an infrastructure that is not controlled and manipulated by this "global power Elite," is diminishing to the point of non-existence.

    With climate changes and terrorism already causing serious disruptions in the normal flow of our lives, governments are becoming less and less able to serve as the people's protector of last resort. Already, one of the politicians who ran for President of the United States in its most recent election, Governor Mitt Romney, suggested that FEMA be turned over to a private run firm? And all of the agencies of government that he did not suggest be privatized (or that have not already been privatized), except for the military, he suggested be abolished. As well, we also see the concomitant rise of the Backwaters' of the world, a private firm that has already begun to take over a lion's share of the responsibilities of our volunteer military. Likewise, our prisons, healthcare system and schools are also being privatized, and everything else is being "outsourced" to the lowest bidder on the global labor market. The book however is not just about international politics or international economics, per se, but is also about the primary bureaucratic instrumentality through which the "Power Elite" operates. This instrumentality, as noted above, is called "the Secret Team."

    How does Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty know about the "Secret Team:" because he used to be one of its Pentagon operational managers. I believe then that out of prudence, when the man who oversaw management of and liaised with "the Secret team" for nine years as a Pentagon as an Air Force Colonel, (and who incidentally was also sent on a wild goose chase to Antarctica in order to get him out of the country, days before the JFK assassination), tells us that something is wrong in Denmark, I believe it is high time to listen up. In a chilling narrative, Colonel Prouty relates to us how he found out about the assassination of JFK. It was during a stopover in New Zealand on his return from the wild goose chase his superiors had sent him on to get him out of the way. Hours BEFORE the assassination had even occurred, somehow the New Zealand press already had the pre-planned talking points on Lee Harvey Oswald. Somehow they mistakenly deployed them prematurely, reporting well in advance of the assassination itself, that Oswald was JFK's lone assassin? How could such a thing happen unless there was a very high level conspiracy?

    The Secret team, according to Prouty consists of a bunch of renegade CIA intelligence operatives that are signed up for life and operate under the full protection and pay of the "Power Elite," itself a cabal of wealthy men with interlocking interests beholden only to their own hunger for power, profit and greed. The "Power Elite" relies upon this covert team of highly trained specialists to get things done without questions being asked and without moral squeamishness.

    Operating outside the normal parameters of political authorization, morality, direction, and law, and hiding behind a wall shielded by national security secrecy, very much like the mafia, the "Secret Team" always gets the job done. They are allowed to ply their immoral trade with both impunity and with legal immunity. In short, in the modern era, in the new "One WorldCorporate Order," they have proven again and again that, at worse they are lawless, and at best, they are a law unto themselves. The members of the "Secret Team" have become the new Jack-booted foot soldiers we see trampling over our dying democracy. As we move deeper and deeper into the uncharted realms of the new Corporate run "One World Order," "we the people" have a lot of questions we must ask ourselves if the democracy we once knew is to endure.

    The climax of the book appears here in chapter 22 ( entitled "Camelot.") It is a beautifully crafted object lesson for the future of what remains of our democracy. It is a narrative summary of how JFK tried but failed to deal with the emerging paradigm shift in power from the Executive branch of the UGS, to the CIA and the "Secret Team," that is to say, from a system of duly elected Representatives to one dictated by the whims of the "Power Elite" through their "Secret Team." JFK's assassination is just the most dramatic consequence of how our then young President failed to save the USG from usurpation of its power by a cabal of anonymous evil men intent on ruling the world. Colonel Prouty's story ends somewhat as follows.

    The Bay of Pigs operation was the seminal event in the clandestine transfer of power from the "normal government" to the CIA's Secret Team." It was done primarily via the thinly transparent interface of the military -- playing a dual role as both military officers reporting to their Commander in Chief, and at the same time as undercover "clandestine operatives" reporting (behind the President's back) to the CIA (and of course through it, to the "Power Elite."). In the book, there is little question where their split loyalties lay.

    The key ruse that provided the glue that made this high level "grifter-like scam" (with the U.S. President, as its "mark)" work to perfection, was the words "anti-Communist counterinsurgency." Put to skilful use in hands of trained Specialists, these words had a powerful and purposeful dual meaning. They meant one thing to "clandestine insider members of the "Secret Team," and quite another to "no need to know outsiders" like the American public (and in this case the whole USG, including the Commander in Chief, the President of the U.S. JFK himself). This willful ambiguity in terminology and the duality in the roles of those involved does most of the heavy lifting in the drama played out by the "insiders" and that resulted in the usurpation and the shift of power from the Presidency to the CIA

    The "Bay of Pigs operation"proved to be the defining, the seminal and pivotal case in point. It began as a small clandestine "anti-Communist counterinsurgency" operation run by the CIA (as also was the case with Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Granada, Angola, and Santo Domingo), ostensibly under the oversight of the "USG," but in fact ended up as a huge CIA-run military failure, one minus the requisite oversight from the US President. The devil of how this happened lies in the slimy details that went on behind the scenes and that are skillfully unveiled in this book. They are details that the reader can also get from a careful reading between the lines of "The Pentagon Papers."

    As the Bay of Pigs Operation slowly morphed from a small-scale USG run operation "with oversight," into a huge, expensive and poorly run CIA operation without any oversight whatsoever, the rules of the game also changed. They changed from being about U.S. security, to being about the greed, power and profits of the "Power Elite, as those objectives were implemented through the "Secret Team." The key to the "Power Elite" getting what they wanted was always accomplished by stoking the ideological fires up to an international boiling point, so that more and more military hardware could be produced, bought and sold.

    Likewise, the roles of the primary players also morphed and changed -- from "clandestine operators" in military uniforms, to "military operators" reporting to their CIA handlers, and thus to the "Power Elite." The executive branch (the ostensible oversight body of the government) was none the wiser, since it was not yet aware that it was "being played" by the CIA and thus did not yet know it was being treated in the same way the public is normally treated: as an "excluded outsider" lacking the required "need to know."

    Through this bureaucratic sleigh of hand, the partial control and power the USG normally exercised in its oversight role had been covertly usurped, as the military operators (and even members of the Presidents own staff proved to be "insiders," i.e., members of the "Secret Team," "playing" the President like a bass fiddle as he and his team became the "marks" in an insider's "con game" in which power and control of the USG was at stake.

    When JFK finally "wised up," it was too late. By then the train had already left the station, with the CIA firmly in the driver's seat. Since JFK era, U.S. foreign policy has become a clear case of the CIA tail wagging the USG dog. And the best proof of the evil intentions of the "Secret Team" calling the shots within the CIA is that no sooner than the Bay of Pigs literally blew up in a spectacular and embarrassing failure did the CIA then put the wheels back in motion to duplicate, expand and even generalize this failed bureaucratic formulate in Vietnam.

    But this time JFK was ready for them and issued NSM-55 and NSM-57, both of which were decision directives designed to put the brakes on the CIA and return the usurped power back to the military where the President was the Commander in Chief. But the CIA was already two steps ahead of JFK. His own staff had been so compromised that he had nowhere to turn? He was penetrated and thus effectively checkmated by an agency of his own government? The more he fought back, the more he lost ground, and the more his back was up against the wall. By the time November, 22, 1963 came around, JFK literally had no bureaucratic friends and nowhere to turn?

    I only regret that an earlier edition of this book had been lying around unread in my library for more than a decade. Five Stars.

    By Luc REYNAERT on November 30, 2008
    A symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue (H. Truman)

    This is an extremely important book. The proof of it is that even the official copy in the Library of Congress disappeared (!). Moreover, even after his death, the author continues to be the object of a smear campaign (see internet).

    His book is not less than a frontal attack on US intelligence and concomitantly on those who control it.
    Its portrait of Allen Dulles, a longtime intelligence director, says it all: `I am a lawyer'; in other words, a servant. But of whom?
    This book unveils the existence of a secret cabal, a Power Elite (G. William Domhoff), a `deep State' (P.D. Scott) within the US and its government as well as in about 40 host countries.
    This Power Elite uses the Secret Team of top intelligence and military commanders as its long arm and protects it. Together they stand above the law and the democratic process. They get things done, whether they have the political authorization or not.
    They dispose of a vast undercover political, military, intelligence, business, media and academic infrastructure, in the US as well as worldwide. They don't respect the nation State and are able to create, to influence and to topple governments in the hemisphere controlled by them.

    The author gives a remarkable insight into the inner workings, the logistics, the strategies and the tactics of the intelligence agency. Its creation and history show that President H. Truman never intended to create an autonomous operational agency in the clandestine field. L.F. Prouty also gives valuable information about the U2- G. Powers incident (apparently to torpedo the US/USSR peace talks) and the Pentagon papers (an intelligence whitewash).

    At the end, the author poses the all important question: `Can any President ever be strong enough really to rule?'

    This book is a must read for all those interested in US history and for all those who want to understand the world we live in.

    For more information on the Power Elite, I recommend the works of O. Tunander, D. Estulin, Peter Dale Scott, Carroll Quigley, Gary Allen and G. W. Domhoff.

    By Herman on February 4, 2017
    Extensive analysis of the CIA from its inception to the 1970's

    The fact that this book all but disappeared when it was distributed in the 1970's tells all that the CIA did not want any of its "dirty laundry" aired in public. Prouty does an excellent (almost over the top) job of describing the rise and strategies and evolution of the CIA up through the 70's. That the Vietnam War was still controlled by the CIA at the writing of the original book also shows JFK had not gained control of the military-industrial complex. For those who are wanting to fill in more pieces of the puzzle this is an excellent source from a man who found himself in the thick of things for many years. The one shot-coming comes in the last chapter in his description of Nixon and especially LBJ not being able to control the military industrial complex either. Consequent independent research over many years seems to show LBJ who was about to go to jail and be dropped from the 1964 ticket, knew about and helped cover up the JFK assassination and is known to have remarked: "Just get me elected and you can have your damn war". There is also evidence Nixon and company undermined the 1968 peace talks as LBJ was trying to end the war and LBJ actually called Nixon and asked him to back off. ( Kinda like the Oct 1980 surprise by Reagan). Consequently we know from Judyth Vary Baker that Lee Oswald was the the assassin of JFK and he in fact was on the payroll of the FBI and CIA James E Files has confessed to being one of the shooters and E. Howard Hunt told his son, he was involved and he was CIA at the time. But no One man can possibly know everything. Given the pervasive infiltration of government, military and probably many civil institutions by the CIA, one wonders who comprises the shadow government in reality?

    By Jeff Marzano on December 17, 2014
    An American Hero Reveals The Shocking Truth

    This book provides a rare glimpse into the secret history and evil machinations of the CIA as it mutated from its original form between 1946 up until the time the book was published in 1973 when it had become a cancerous blight within the government.

    It should not be surprising that most people never really understood the so called Vietnam War and they still don't. Even people in the American government like the Secretary Of Defense were completely confused and manipulated by the Agency as it's called.

    President Kennedy was somewhat inexperienced when he first entered office. JFK thought he could handle problems in the government in the same way he handled problems during his presidential campaign. He had an informal style at first where he would just ask a friend to take care of it. This caused JFK to disregard important checks and balances which had been set up to hopefully prevent the CIA from crossing the line from being just an intelligence agency into the realm of initiating clandestine military operations.

    The National Security Counsel was supposed to give direction to the CIA and then the Operations Coordination Board was supposed to verify that the CIA had done what they were told and only what they were told. But even before JFK got into office the Agency had taken many determined steps to undermine those controls.

    JFK's informal style opened the door even wider for the Agency to circumvent whatever controls may have still been effective to put some sort of limits on their 'fun and games'. Having an informal style with them was dangerous because they were experts at getting around all sorts of rules and laws.

    The Agency double crossed JFK during the Bay Of Pigs debacle. Publicly JFK took the blame for what happened but according to Fletcher it was the CIA who cancelled the air support that would have destroyed Fidel Castro's planes on the ground. As a result JFK's only options were to accept the blame or admit to the world that things were being done by the American military establishment that he wasn't even aware of. John Kennedy was a fast learner however and he stated that he would break the CIA up into a thousand tiny pieces. JFK was fed up with all of the Agency's fun and games.

    Something similar happened with the Gary Powers U2 spy plane that had to land in the Soviet Union. The evil Secret Team sabotaged the U2 to derail President Eisenhower's lifelong dream of holding a worldwide peace summit. Like JFK Ike accepted the blame publicly.

    Ike's only other option would have been to admit that the U2 flight was unauthorized and then fire Allan Dulles and the other leaders of the evil Secret Team. But Fletcher says Ike couldn't do this for various reasons even though Nikita Khrushchev probably realized that Eisenhower did not break his word and authorize the U2 mission.

    Ike's comments about the Military Industrial Complex which he made during his farewell address turned out to be very prophetic indeed.

    These examples provide the picture of an Agency that had become a law unto itself which reinterpreted whatever orders it was given to make those orders conform to their evil schemes. Fletcher provides many details in the book about how the Agency was able to circumvent laws and regulations and manipulate anyone and everyone in the government starting with the president. They did this mainly by abusing their control of secrecy but they used many other methods as well.

    Secret Team leader Allan Dulles wrote a book called 'The Craft of Intelligence'. The title of this book sort of indicates the very problem Fletcher Prouty explains in his book. Dulles viewed himself as a sort of artist or craftsman who could distort information and make it appear in any form he wanted. Strangely Fletcher refers to his close personal friendship with Allan Dulles in the acknowledgements at the beginning of the book but then spends the rest of the book portraying Dulles as a sort of Joseph Goebbels figure.

    Fletcher spends over 300 pages describing the metamorphosis which occurred with the CIA as it veered very far afield from what president Truman had intended when he created the Agency. Then towards the end of the book Fletcher finally reveals his shocking conclusions about what this massive abuse of power lead to.

    Fletcher felt that the assassination of president Kennedy was the single most pivotal event in modern American history as far as the changes that the assassination caused.

    Sadly as Fletcher points out the Vietnam War never really had any military objective. The theory was that if South Vietnam fell this would cause a domino effect and the dreaded communism monster would start gobbling up the entire world. Then when South Vietnam did fall with no domino effect the Secret Team published a group of documents called the Pentagon Papers. These documents deflected blame away from the CIA and said nobody listened to the CIA when they warned that the Vietnam situation was not winnable.

    But it wouldn't matter if anyone listened to the Secret Team anyway because they always lie.

    This book presents an American government in chaos during the Vietnam era. It was a government that had been high jacked by the evil Secret Team.

    After the Bay Of Pigs incident Fidel Castro apparently got fed up with the CIA and America in general. Castro turned to the Soviet Union instead. This lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was only in the last 10 years or so that people realized just how close the world came to an all out nuclear exchange at that time.

    This was a very dangerous game master craftsman Allan Dulles and his other liars were playing. They were like kids starting fires all over the place in a big field and then just sitting back and seeing which of those fires would become an inferno as Vietnam did.

    Also in recent years people have implicated Lyndon Johnson as being part of the conspiracy to assassination JFK. So LBJ was on the team also.

    I'm not sure if Fletcher ever really spells out what the true motivations of the Secret Team were but he hints at it. Probably the three main reasons that people engage in criminal activity are sex, money, and revenge. Usually when crimes are committed there's a money trail somewhere. And in the case of government military spending that's a very long trail.

    This is a serious book which contains many details about an approximately 25 year period that began after World War II. It is not light reading.

    On the Trail of the Assassins: One Man's Quest to Solve the Murder of President Kennedy

    JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

    David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot, Participant in Anti-Castro Bioweapon Plot, Friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Key to the JFK Assassination

    The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

    Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination

    Dr. Mary's Monkey: How the Unsolved Murder of a Doctor, a Secret Laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey Viruses Are Linked to Lee Harvey ... Assassination and Emerging Global Epidemics

    Top Secret/Majic: Operation Majestic-12 and the United States Government's UFO Cover-up

    Watch this documentary series on the internet. The hypocrites have pulled it off the market:

    The Men Who Killed Kennedy

    The Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD Series - Episode List

    1. "The Coup D'Etat" (25 October 1988)
    2. "The Forces Of Darkness" (25 October 1988)
    3. "The Cover-Up" (20 November 1991)
    4. "The Patsy" (21 November 1991)
    5. "The Witnesses" (21 November 1991)
    6. "The Truth Shall Set You Free" (1995)

    The Final Chapter episodes (internet only):

    7. "The Smoking Guns" (2003)
    8. "The Love Affair" (2003)
    9. "The Guilty Men" (2003)

    By Stephen Courts on August 7, 2012
    Secret Team (CIA) By Colonel Fletcher Prouty

    Though this book is now over 40 years old, I found the information very relevant and 100% trustworthy from one of America's true Patriots. Colonel Prouty served his country for decades as a pilot and as an integral part of the Department of Defense and CIA Though for nine years Colonel Prouty was the liason between the Air Force and the CIA's clandestine affairs, he is able to reveal confidential information that would typically be classified "Top Secret", because Colonel Prouty did not work for the CIA and therefore did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement with the nefarious CIA

    What is fascinating about Colonel Prouty is that he was everywhere throughout his career. He watched world affairs as they unfolded, meeting the most influencial leaders of his time. From FDR, Stalin, Churchill, Ike and every general and admiral in our military. For the nine years from 1954 to 1963, he was involved as the go to guy for the military leaders and the president, including both Ike and JFK. In other words, Colonel Prouty writes from personal and direct experience.

    Now the meat of the book is about the creation and abuses of the 1947 created CIA From the end of World War Two until the mid 1970's, the CIA abused its primary responsibility of intelligence gathering to literally unchecked clandestine and covert upheavels in every part of the world. The CIA, particularly under Allen Dulles, created one coup d'etat after another. The reader will realize that from 1945 until the Marines reached the shores of Viet Nam in 1965, every piece of skulldruggery in Viet Nam was done by the CIA The CIA had infiltrated the entire government, from the Department of Defense to the Department of State. Many people would be shocked to know that what passed as Defense activity was acually generals and admirals, wearing their uniforms and working for the CIA Whether it was advising the President, subverting Ambassadors or lying to Congress, the CIA ruled and few knew what they were really doing. Colonel Prouty tells the stories accurately of every subversive, nefarious act the CIA was involved in. One example in particular stands out. It was Ike's goal at the end of his 2nd term as president to have a peace conference with the USSR, one to sign a peace treaty and end the cold war. In direct violation of the presidents specific instructions not to fly U-2 flights prior to the conference in June of 1960, the CIA flew the ill fated Gary Powers flight that guaranteed that the conference would go forth. This was a most important conference that could have brought nuclear peace accords decades before they were eventually signed. Dulles and his henchmen deliberately insured that Gary Powers not only violated the order not to fly these observations flights, they insured that it would be downed by sabotaging the flight and thus force Ike to either admit he knew or fire the bastards who embarrassed him. Ike chose to take responsibility and thus the peace talks were cancelled. There was also another flight in 1958 that was downed in the Soviet Union.

    Most Americans would be shocked to know the CIA has their own private air lines, Air America. This is no small air lines. Had Colonel Prouty written this book later, he could connect the CIA with the massive drug smuggling that has devastated American cities. They use the proceeds of this smuggling to finance their illicit involvement of other sovereign countries.

    Bottom line is this is an important book as is his 1993 JFK & Viet Nam. Colonel Prouty was a significant advisor to Oliver Stone and his masterpiece, JFK. I am currently finishing the rereading of said book. If you want to know who has controled our foreign policy (against the charter that created this monstrosity) since the mid 1940's, this is an excellent book to begin with. It is my personal opinion, having read many books on the CIA, that their main function is to serve the multi-national corportations and the bankers that exploit the less developed countries around the world and to insure that there will never be peace. There will not be a World War Three, because nuclear weapons would most likely be used and earth as we know it will cease to exist. Therefore, limited, no win conflicts will continually persist. Beginning with Korea, to Viet Nam, to Iraq to Afganistan. The irony is we are wasting our human resources and our treasury to bankrupt our country while both Russia and China sit back and spend zero (USSR & Afganistan is the exception) and develope the kind of infrastruture and consumer goods as well as education that we should be doing.

    Finally, the record of the CIA leaves a lot to be desired. There were many failures despite billions of dollars spent and the infiltration into every branch of our society, from education to media to think tanks to the military. Read this book and you will also discover the misadventure in Viet Nam that cost 58,000 plus American casualities, millions of Viet Namese, millions of service men who would never be the same after this debacle. Colonel Prouty explains this better than anyone I have yet to read. He predicted another debacle (Iraq & Afganistan) after the Viet Nam debacle. I believe Cononel Prouty passed away last decade, but he would not have been shocked by the rediculous misadventures in both of the above foremetioned countries. Think of the trillions of dollars and the bloodshed lost on a military misadventure that has no way of producing a positive outcome for the United States.

    Stephen Courts
    August 7, 2012

    By anarchteacher on April 30, 2008
    An Insider's Candid Expose' of the National Security State

    As in the case of the brilliant Jules Archer volume, The Plot To Seize The White House, it is terrific to have this masterful study of the inner workings of the early CIA back in print after so many years of unavailability.

    Skyhorse Publishing is to be commended in seeing to it that both of these crucial works are again available to the attentive reading public who want to know the truth concerning our dark hidden history that the government has so actively strived to keep buried.

    The late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty served as chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he was in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for covert activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.

    In Oliver Stone's highly acclaimed film on the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, JFK, the mysterious character "X" portrayed by Donald Sutherland was in fact Colonel Prouty, who assisted director Stone in the production and scripting of this historical epic. Prouty had relayed the shocking information detailed in the movie to the actual New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Cosner, in a series of communiques.

    The Secret Team was first published in 1973 during the Watergate scandal, when many Americans were first learning about the dark side of covert government, an outlaw executive branch headed by a renegade chief of state. Richard Nixon would not be the last of this foul breed.

    This was years before Frank Church's Senate Committee's damning revelations of CIA misdeeds and assassination plots against foreign leaders rocked the nation.

    In each chapter in his book, Prouty speaks frankly with an insiders knowledge of what he describes as the inner workings of "the Secret Team."

    This prudential judgment and keen assessment of the National Security Establishment was gained from years as a behind-the-scenes seasoned professional in military intelligence working intimately with those of the highest rank in policy making and implimentation.

    The important story Prouty boldly tells should be read by every reflective American.

    By SER on December 6, 2001
    Best Book On CIA Misdeeds

    The author was the liason officer between the CIA and the military during the 50's and 60's. As an air force officer (Colonel), he was excempt from taking the CIA oath of secrecy and therefore was in a position to write the book in 1973. Apparently, shortly after the book's publication, almost all copies disappeared, probably bought up by the CIA I was lucky to find a copy, published in Taiwan (Imperial Books & Records), in a used bookstore several years ago. The author details not only how the CIA conducts its operations, but more importantly, how it manages to keep most or all of its deeds from the eyes of congress, the population and even the President, if necessary. This is the best book I've read on the secret workings of the CIA and its misdeeds during the 50' and early 60's. Not to belittle them, but The Secret Team is a far more informative book than Marchetti and Marks' The CIA And The Cult Of Intelligence....

    added, Jan09:

    Actually, practically ever since I posted the review, I've been wanting to write a more detailed one, but since it's now been some 20 years since I read the book, I can't remember enough details to do it justice. If I ever reread it, I'll be sure to post a better review. I frankly think my present "review" isn't much of one - and it was cut short after my reference to the Marchetti/Marks book, the linking to which was not allowed at the time.

    For example, one item of considerable current interest which I remember from the book is the author's detailing of Operation Northwoods, from the early 1960's - the plan by the intelligence agencies to conduct a false flag attack against American interests and blame it on Cuba, in order to justify a war against that country.
    There was a big deal made about this (deservedly, in my opinion), only four or five years ago, when the National Security Archive (an apparently independent non-governmental research institute at George Washington University) discovered the details of this proposed operation, supposedly for the first time, in declassified documents. (This was in light of the ongoing conspiratorial controversies surrounding the 9-11 events.)
    Yet, author Prouty detailed Operation Northwoods in his The Secret Team, first published long ago in 1973.
    This is but one detail that indicates a much-needed elaborate review of this book.

    I'd like to also add (since it is now apparently allowed) that The Secret Team, among other items, is available on CD from the L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site: http://www.prouty.org/

    Finally, for readers still obsessed with the JFK assassination, I would like to recommend Final Judgment - The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, by Michael Collins Piper, a book which lives up to it's title. My use of the word "obsessed" is not meant derogatorily, as I have my own bookshelf-full as testament to that particular subject, but as an inducement to read the book, which will make the big picture very clear indeed. Do yourselves the favor.

    Last edit: Jan09

    By William Thelen on January 9, 2009
    The Real "Mr. X" of the movie JFK

    If you want to know about "Black Ops", who really killed JFK and why, why Vietnam was a trumped up war for profit and why we should have never been there, this is the man to read - L. Fletcher Prouty. He was the USAF colonel who was the liaison between the Pentagon and Black Ops from WW2 on until after JFK was killed. He also got his hands dirty on site in Greece and a few other places so he knows too well what he's talking about. If he talks about black ops, politics, the CIA and anything related-----listen carefully-----this is the "horses' mouth". It's long, even in paperback, and very detailed but that's exactly what you want in a book like this-----the real detailed truth. Highly recommended.

    [Nov 01, 2017] The Political Organization Men

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Organization Man ..."
    "... What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are those, to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication." ..."
    "... Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and career party politics. ..."
    "... The Power Elite ..."
    "... The Organization Man. ..."
    "... hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace. ..."
    "... Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and applied, are Mills's "power elite." ..."
    "... It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer. ..."
    "... Rafe explained it this way ..."
    "... Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion. They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the party ranks. ..."
    "... As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders. They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership. ..."
    "... Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest ..."
    "... America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood ..."
    "... This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure. ..."
    Nov 01, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Many working-class Americans voted for Donald Trump believing he would address their needs, not those of rich Republicans. But all pols, it seems, end up conforming to their political group's priorities, as Lawrence Davidson explains.

    By Lawrence Davidson

    In 1956, William H. Whyte published a book entitled The Organization Man about America's societal changes in the post-World War II economy. Basing his findings on a large number of interviews with CEOs of major American corporations, Whyte concluded that, within the context of modern organizational structure, American "rugged individualism" had given way to a "collectivist ethic." Economic success and individual recognition were now pursued within an institutional structure – that is, by "serving the organization."

    Whyte's book was widely read and praised, yet his thesis was not as novel as it seemed. "Rugged individualism," to the extent that it existed, was (and is) the exception for human behavior and not the rule. We have evolved to be group-oriented animals and not lone wolves. This means that the vast majority of us (and certainly not just Americans) live our lives according to established cultural conventions. These operate on many levels – not just national patriotism or the customs of family life.

    What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are those, to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication."

    Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and career party politics.

    For insight in this we can turn to the sociologist C. Wright Mills , whose famous book The Power Elite was published the same year as Whyte's The Organization Man. Mills's work narrows the world's ruling bureaucracies to government, military and top economic corporations. T hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace.

    Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and applied, are Mills's "power elite."

    How this works out in the military is pretty obvious. There is a long tradition of dedication to duty. At the core of this dedication is a rigid following of orders given by superiors. This tradition is upheld even if it is suspected that one's superior is incompetent.

    It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer.

    The Organization Man or Woman in Politics

    Running for and holding office in countries like the United States and Canada often requires one to "take the vows of organization life." Does this support democracy or erode it? Here is one prescient answer: the way we have structured our party politics has given us "an appalling political system which is a step-by-step denial of democracy and a solid foundation for a 'soft' dictatorship."

    One of the elegant rooms at President Trump's Mar-a-Lago club. (Photo from maralagoclub.com)

    Those are the words of the late Rafe Mair , a Canadian politician, broadcaster, author and a good friend of this writer. Rafe spent years in Canadian politics, particularly in his home province of British Columbia, and his experience led him to the conclusion expressed above. How does this translate into practice?

    Rafe explained it this way : "In a parliamentary [or other form of representative] democracy the voter transfers his rights to his member of parliament [congressperson, senator or state legislator] to exercise on his behalf – the trouble is, by running for his political party the [elected person, in turn, is led to] assign your [the voter's] rights to the [party] leader for his exclusive use!"

    There is no law that makes the elected official do this. However, the inducements to do so are very powerful.

    Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion. They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the party ranks.

    As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders. They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership.

    ... ... ...

    Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest ; America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood ; and Islamic Fundamentalism . He blogs at www.tothepointanalyses.com .

    Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 9:19 am

    I believe we are prisoners of a corrupted "democracy."
    -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
    July 13, 2017
    The Prisoners of "Democracy"

    Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and all kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
    [more info on this at link below]
    http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html

    Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Yes, our ertswhile democracy has been completely corrupted. Thanks to Lawrence Davidson, William Whyte, C. Wright Mills, and Rafe Mair for this consideration of the systemic corruption of political parties. The diseases of conformity within party organizations are a nearly inherent problem of democracy.

    The improper influence which determines the policies conformed to by parties is the central problem, and stems largely from influence of the economic Power Elite, directing the policies to which the Organization Man must be obedient to be chosen. This distortion can be eliminated by Amendments to the Constitution to restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited individual contributions.

    Our problem is that we cannot make such reforms because those tools of democracy are already controlled by oligarchy, which never yields power but to superior force. Talk of justice and peace is not in their language of might makes right, and has no effect whatsoever. They yielded to the 1964 Civil Rights Act only because their fear of riots in the streets led them to pretend that MLK et al had been persuasive.

    The foreign wars may be stopped by the defeat, isolation, and embargo of the US by foreign powers. But within the US, the full price of democracy must again be paid the People of the US. The oligarchy must be defeated by superior force: only those who deny enforcement to oligarchy and terrify the rich will bring them to yield any power. That is likely to await more severe recessions and inequities caused by the selfish and irresponsible rich.

    mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    You are exactly right Sam F. Unfortunately time is quickly running out for our corrupt "civilization." The time to cultivate and practice wisdom has passed. The sad truth is that our goose is cooked; there will be no cavalry showing up to save us. We are now "eating our karma" and will reap our just deserts. Not because I or anyone say so, but because implacable laws of nature will now play out. Dominant intellectual species occupy a precarious position in planetary evolution, and we are on the verge of a great fall – and all the King's horses and all the King's men will not be able to put our extincting species together again ..

    Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    Your reply touches a responsive chord, in that humanity seems to have made so little permanent progress in its million years or so, mostly in its last few hundred years, an insignificant fraction of planetary history. But the history and literature of temporary progress lost is significant as the repository of ideas for future democracies, at those rare moments when they are designed.

    Our diseased society is but one tree in the forest of democracies. The US is or will be like the apparently healthy tree that took down my power lines last night, a pretty red oak with brilliant autumn leaves, but sideways now and blocking the road. But like the leaves on that tree, we can see the problem and still hope to be as happy as this year's leaves on healthier trees.

    As in what I like to call the universal mind of humanity, individuals may have foresight and thoughts beyond their apparent functions, which survive in that greater mind of their thoughts recorded or just passed along, and in that way their learning is not in vain.

    Drew Hunkins , October 30, 2017 at 10:34 am

    Trump did nix out the TPP and did desire a rapprochement of sorts with Moscow. He also regularly asserted that he wanted to re-build American manufacturing in the heartland and wanted to rein in Washington's footprint across the globe. Of course Trump ultimately capitulated to the militarist Russophobes. One can only put so much stock in campaign pronouncements, but he did come off as less bellicose than Killary, that was clear to any fair minded observer.

    Trump's also been a nightmare as it comes to workers' rights in general, consumer and environmental protections and fair taxation as it relates to regressive vs progressive rates. He was also an Islamophobe when it comes to Iran and fell right in line with Adelson and the other ZIonist psychopaths.

    The most welcoming aspect of Trump was his desire to make peace with Russia, this has been completely sabotaged by the deep state militarists. This is the reason the Corkers, Flakes and much of the establishment mass media browbeat and attack him relentlessly. Most of them ignore what he actually should be admonished for opting for nuclear brinkmanship instead.

    exiled off mainstreet , October 30, 2017 at 11:25 am

    This is the best description I have seen about Trump's role.

    Bob Van Noy , October 30, 2017 at 10:37 am

    Thank you CN and Lawrence Davidson for what I think is a accurate explanation of the failure of our Democracy. I especially like the reference to C. Wright Mills who is a heroic character for me. I think Mr. Mill's book on the Power Elite was prescient, as was his thinking in general. He published a little known book "Listen, Yankee" (1960) that was very insightful about the then current Cuban Revolution. It seems in retrospect that there was plenty of warning at the time for America to wake up to the goals of Big Government and Big Business but it was either successfully repressed or ignored by those who might have made a difference, like Labor. At any rate, C. Wright Mills died too early, because he seemed uniquely suited to make a difference. His writing remains current, I'll add a link.

    http://www.cwrightmills.org

    mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    I am a big CW Mills fan too. We have had many warnings – now we are going to experience the fate of those who ignore wisdom.

    tina , October 30, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    Hey, college UWM 1984- 1987 Mass Comm, I did not graduate , but we studied Mills, Lewis Mumford, and my favorite, Marshall McLuhan. Also, first time I was introduced to Todd Gitlin and IF Stone. While I did not pursue a life in journalism, I so appreciate all those who did the hard work. I still have all my college required reading books from these people, it is like a set of encyclopedias, only better. And better than the internet. Keep up the work CN , I am not that talented, but what you do is important.

    BobH , October 30, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    First, let me commend Lawrence Davidson for his selection of two of the most insightful writers of the sixties to use as a springboard for his perceptive essay. A third(John Kenneth Galbraith) would complete a trilogy of the brilliant academic social analysis of that time. Galbraith's masterpiece(The Affluent Society) examined the influence of the heavy emphasis corporate advertising had on American culture and concluded that the economic/social structure was disproportionately skewed toward GDP(gross domestic product) at the expense of educational investment. This was in direct contrast with the popular novels and essays of Ayn Rand, the goddess of greed whose spurious philosophy had come to epitomize the mindset that continues to plague the globe with the neoliberal ideals that have been reinvented under many names over time; i.e. laissez faire, trickle down,the Laffer curve, free market economics and monetarism.

    Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    Usually such claims are themselves no more than campaign hot air. However, in their ignorance, voters may well respond to such hot air, and the result can be a jump from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. U.S. voters seem to have taken just such a leap when they elected Donald Trump president.

    Nowhere in this essay are either of the terms "Hillary" or "Clinton" mentioned. U.S. voters had the choice of a known evil on the "D" side of the ballot, or another person well understood to be a shallow, self-centered, rich *****. They were going to end up with an unqualified person either way the voting went. Quite possibly the nod went to Trump because 1) his promises were surely more believable than those of Clinton and 2) Trump wasn't yet the known destroyer of entire nations.

    Describing the predicament of the voters as "ignorance" just isn't fair when looking at the overall picture.

    mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    Yes. Voters were put in a no win situation. That's why I did not participate in the "show" election.

    Realist , October 31, 2017 at 4:33 am

    What were Obama's reasons for failing to take a stand, once elected, on all the promises he made during his campaigns? He mostly gave away the store to the other side, and insulted his supporters while doing so. Talk about progressives not getting a "win" even after carrying the elections. Two terms earlier, the media called the contest one of two "moderates" between Bush and Gore. If that was "moderation" practiced by Dubya, I need a new dictionary. Most recent elections have been pointless, especially when the Supreme Court doesn't allow a complete recount of the votes. In a field of 13(!) primary candidates last year, the GOP could not provide one quality individual. The Dems cheated to make sure the worst possible of theirs would get the nomination. I see nothing but mental and moral midgets again on the horizon for 2020. I don't expect Trump to seek re-election. He will have had a bellyful should he even survive.

    Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    I believe what has happened to all of us is: "The Imposition of a New World Order." This plan has been helped by puppet politicians. Therefore the question must be asked: "Is There An Open Conspiracy to Control the World'?
    [More info on this at link below]
    http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2014/12/is-there-open-conspiracy-to-control.html

    john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Stephen: why do you ask the question to which you already know the answer? Yes, we're all screwed and have been for years. The bankers already control the world and the military make sure its stays that way.

    Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    Very true john wilson. Questions beget answers and information.
    cheers Stephen J.

    mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    It's like the Purloined Letter by Poe – the truth of our enslavement is so obvious, that only the deeply brainwashed can fail to see it.

    Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    The parts of The Organization Man I found most interesting were the chapters about "Testing The Organization Man". The companies were deliberately selecting for people we currently label Corporate Psychopaths. Whyte suggested memorizing some "attitudes" before taking one of the tests. Among them:

    I loved my father and my mother, but my father a little bit more
    I like things pretty much the way they are
    I never worry much about anything
    I don't care for books or music much
    I love my wife and children
    I don't let them get in the way of company work

    You can substitute any number of things that you won't allow to get in the way of company work .

    Ecology. Laws. Regulations. Integrity. Religion.

    "Screw planet Earth. Exxon comes first!" Or "screw Jesus and the horse he rode in on. We need to cut taxes and balance the budget. People are poor because they're too lazy to get a job."

    mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:53 pm

    Good points. Brainwashing in action revealed.

    john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Democracy is another word for consensual slavery. In a communist system or a dictatorship etc you are told you are a slave because you have no voice or choice. In a democracy you do have a choice and its between one salve master and another. If you vote Democrat you are just as much a slave to the system as you are if you vote Republican. The possibility of a third choice which might just free you from your chains, is a fantasy and only there as window dressing to give democracy some credibility. The term for this dilemma is called being TOTALLY SCREWED!!

    mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    Amen John. You got it right brother.

    exiled off mainstreet , October 31, 2017 at 11:01 am

    This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure.

    [Nov 01, 2017] How the US Aristocracy Deceive the US Public

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another year has passed with no one from a Wall Street bank going to jail for the criminal behavior everyone knows helped cause the financial crisis. Fines against Wall Street banks are reaching $100 billion, but all will be paid by stockholders. Bank CEOs and managers pay no fines and face no prison. ..."
    "... There has been no reform -- zilch, nada -- of the credit-rating agencies. They are right back rating securities from issuers who pay them for their ratings. ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq ..."
    "... the betrayal of the Sunnis by the Baghdad government the Americans left behind has been crucial to recruiting by the self-­proclaimed caliphate. Many of those who had helped crush Al Qaeda in Iraq eight years ago have concluded that no one except ISIS will protect them from Suleimani's fighters and flunkies. ..."
    "... To counter Iran in Iraq and prevent the alienation that created ISIS would have required a better ambassador than Hill and a more attentive State Department than the one run by Hillary Clinton. It would have required, perhaps, a thousand Emma Skys. But there was only one of those. And it would have meant many more years of enormous involvement on the ground, but the American people had no taste for that. ..."
    Nov 01, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org

    The progressive former Democratic US Senator Ted Kaufman wrote at Forbes , on 22 July 2014

    Another year has passed with no one from a Wall Street bank going to jail for the criminal behavior everyone knows helped cause the financial crisis. Fines against Wall Street banks are reaching $100 billion, but all will be paid by stockholders. Bank CEOs and managers pay no fines and face no prison.

    There has been no reform -- zilch, nada -- of the credit-rating agencies. They are right back rating securities from issuers who pay them for their ratings.

    If you still can't trust the credit-rating on a bond, and if Wall Street's bigs still stand immune from the law even after the 2008 crash they had played a huge role to cause, then in what way can the US Government itself be called a 'democracy'?

    Kaufman tries to get the American public interested in overcoming the US Government's profound top-level corruption, but few US politicians join with him on that, because only few American voters understand that a corrupt government (especially one that's corrupt at the very top) cannot even possibly be a democratic government.

    However, America's aristocracy are even more corrupt than Wall Street itself is, and they control Wall Street, behind the scenes. And their 'news'media are under strict control to portray America as being still a democratic country that somehow lives up to its anti-aristocratic and anti-imperialistic Founders' intentions and Constitution. Maybe all that remains of those Founders' intentions today is that Britain's aristocracy no longer rules America -- but America's aristocracy now does, instead. And, this isn't much, if any, of an improvement.

    Although the US aristocracy -- America's billionaires and centi-millionaires -- are the principals, and Wall Street are only their financial representatives (rather t than the aristocracy itself), Wall Street was blamed by liberals for the 2008 economic crash; and, of course, Wall Street did do lots of dirty work deceiving outside investors and many home buyers and others in order to extract from the public (including those much smaller investors) the hundreds of billions of dollars that the US aristocracy and its big-finance agents drew in pay and bonuses and other ways, from these economic extractions. But the aristocrats themselves emerged unscathed, even in their reputations, and were mainly financially enriched by the scams, which had been set-up by Wall Street in order to enrich the investment-insiders (the aristocrats themselves) at the expense of investment-outsiders, and of the public-at-large. Conservatives blamed the Government for the crash (as if the Government didn't represent only the aristocracy , but instead represented the American public). However, liberals blamed Wall Street (the financial agents of America's aristocracy). And, nobody blamed the aristocracy itself.

    America's entire political system, the liberal and the conservative politicians and press, thus hid, from the public, the role that the principals, the aristocrats themselves, had played, demanding these crimes from and by their agents. In other words: the top people who had caused the 2008 crash, didn't only -- and all of them did -- avoid prison entirely, but the worst that some of them suffered, was only that the financial firms that some of them had headed, became hit by wrist-slap fines, and that some of their lower-level employees who had actually executed or carried out the scams are being prosecuted and might someday be fined or even sent to prison . But neither the aristocrats nor their financial agents who run Wall Street were punished, either by the law, nor by their personal reputations. They still are treated in their 'news'media as sages and 'philanthropists', instead of as the nation's most-successful organized gangsters.

    US President Barack Obama himself protected the top Wall Street people, but, because he was a liberal -- i.e., a conservative who is hypocritical enough to damn conservatism in public; or, in other words, a conservative who misrepresents what he is -- he publicly condemned, in vague terms, "the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis" , even while he had his Administration prosecute none of them , and even while he assured Wall Street's top people privately "I'm protecting you." Obama had told the Wall Street bigs, near the start of his regime, on 27 March 2009, in private, inside the White House: "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you. I'm going to shield you." And that's what he did. To him, the public were just "pitchforks," like the KKK bigots who had chased Blacks with pitchforks and lynched them during the early 20th Century were. The heads of Wall Street firms that were being bailed-out by US taxpayers were persecuted victims of the public, in that US President's eyes. To them, the public are merely a mob.

    And, on 20 September 2016, Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future, headlined "Banks Used Low Wages, Job Insecurity To Force Employees To Commit Fraud" ; so, there was no way that the employees could keep their jobs except to do the crimes that they were being virtually forced by their bosses to do. The criminality was actually at the very top -- even above where Obama had promised "I'm protecting you," which was directed instead only to the Wall Street bigs, and not to the billionaires they served. And even those people mainly weren't billionaires at all; they were mainly just top financial agents for the billionaires, grasping to join the aristocracy. Obama, like they, represented the billionaires, though as a politician; and, so, he talked publicly against some of these agents, basically against Republican ones, in order to keep the votes of Democrats -- he just kept suckering the liberals, the Democratic Party of the US aristocracy's voters.

    The aristocracy's 'news'media present the storyline that the billionaires and centi-millionaires were merely among the many victims of the scams that had produced the 2008 crash; but there is a problem with that storyline: the Government bailed-out those giant investors, because those were overwhelmingly the investors in "Strategically Important Financial Institutions" -- not in medium and small-sized ones, not in merely community banks, but in the giant banks and insurers.

    These mega-investors were the controlling interests in America's international corporations. They consequently controlled US Government politics and political fundraising.

    Cheated investors, and illegally foreclosed home-owners, were nominally protected in the laws, but even the federal Government's own studies of actual results showed that almost all of these people, the real direct victims, were simply being ignored -- even while Wall Street and its mega-investors got bailed-out by taxpayers .

    The entire system, both private and public, was thus controlled by the aristocracy; and, so, even now a decade after the crash, the responsible aristocrats remain at the very top, both financially and in terms of prestige, and the statutes-of-limitations on possible prosecutions of decisions they had made which had actually produced the crash, have expired, so that these individuals can't be prosecuted, not even if an honest person were elected to the White House and were to become supported by an honest Congress. "Equal Justice Under Law" -- this certainly isn't that, nor anything close to it. In fact, America has the world's highest percentage of its population in prison of any country, but aristocrats never end up there unless the aristocrat is a drug-kingpin, and even those are rarely prosecuted, even though their underlings are. And, how can such a nation as this, be called a "democracy"? But it's not only a dictatorship ; it is an imperial one: Obama himself said many times, such as on 28 May 2014 , "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation," which means that every other nation was "dispensable" to him; and, any foreign aristocracy -- and any democracy (if such any longer exists) -- will therefore be either a vassal-nation, or else "the enemy," and thus be destroyed, at the sole discretion of America's (and its allied) aristocracies.

    For example, to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was "the enemy" and Iraq was "dispensable" (to use Obama's term); and, to Obama, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, and Viktor Yanukovych, were "enemies," and those nations also were "dispensable." During earlier eras, Mohammed Mosaddegh, and Jacobo Arbenz, and Salvador Allende, were "enemies," whose governments were, in their own times, "dispensable," and so the US aristocracy replaced them by US-Government-selected tyrants. (Assad, however, was able to stay in power, not only because he had the support of the majority of Syrians, but because Russia decided to protect Syria's national sovereignty -- to make its firm stand, there, not allow that ally, too, to fall by means of an American invasion, as Ukraine had fallen by means of an American coup in 2014.) Trump seems to think that Iran and North Korea are especially "dispensable" (again, using Obama's term).

    Trump came to power promising opposition against the US aristocracy; but, instead, he's on the attack against Obama's least-bad policies, while trying to out-do Obama's worst policies (such as by his cancelling the Iran deal, and by his trying to destroy Obamacare and the Paris Climate Agreement). If Obama turned out to be a Democratic George W. Bush, then perhaps Trump will turn out to be a Republican Barack Obama, and this will be the 'bipartisanship' that US voters say they want. But the polls don't show that America's electorate actually want the type of 'bipartisanship' that the US aristocracy are delivering, via the nonstop neoconservatism of Bush, and then of Obama, and then (perhaps too) of Trump. The aristocracy are neoconservative (or "imperialistic," to employ the Continental term for it); and, though the public don't even know what that means, bipartisan neoconservatism always bring on yet more invasions and wars, which lower the welfare of the public, even while the welfare of the aristocrats goes up from it. The public just don't know this.

    A good example, recently, of how the US aristocracy deceive the US public, to accept such a barbaric Government (a neoconservative regime) is the uniform neoconservatism of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties, and of their respective 'news'media, this uniform neoconservatism that's being reflected by the almost simultaneous publication in the Establishment's own Foreign Affairs (from the Council on Foreign Relations), and from the British Guardian that's now controlled by George Soros and US and-affiliated international corporations, and also from the US military-industrial complex's bipartisan neoconservative propaganda-organ The Atlantic , and also from the neoconservative Vox online 'news'-site . In all of these 'news'media, almost on the very same day, are being published articles by, and interviews of, Ms. Emma Sky, a thoroughly undistinguished and undistinguishable neoconservative "intellectual" (CFR, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Officer of the British Empire, etc.), who, with no demonstrated outstanding abilities, but only with the hypocrisy and callousness that aristocrats tend to seek out in those whom they select to execute their dirty-work, graduated from an elite college and then (without needing to obtain any higher academic or other degree, and with no record of personal achievement at anything) went virtually straight into advising governments and serving as the US invading and occupying General David Petraeus 's (the US torture-meister 's) right-hand political advisor in Iraq, with the title of "Governorate Co-ordinator of Kirkuk for the Coalition Provisional Authority, 2003-2004" , and, then, ultimately, as "advisor to the Commanding General of US Forces in Iraq from 2007-2010," before bec oming widely published in the US empire's various 'news'media, with not only these hypocritical articles from her that were linked-to at those four publications, but also books, all of them being standard discreet neoconservative fare, 'compassionately' gung-ho on the US empire, and especially rabid against Iran, because Iranians in 1953 had voted for Mohammed Mosaddegh as Prime Minister, who promptly passed a land-reform act, and nationalized the UK aristocracy's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, after which the US CIA engineered a coup overthrowing him, grabbing Iran's oil, and establishing in Iran the Pahlevi Shah's brutal dictatorship with torture-chambers, which dictatorship Ms. Sky evidently wants restored in some form to Iran, perhaps as punishment to the Iranian people, for having stood up against the American invaders and occupiers, in 1953. Such people are PR agents, not really journalists or historians -- of anything. But, apparently, readers find their misrepresentations to be tolerable; so, at least her propaganda isn't amateurish. If only readers would just ask themselves the type of question that the victims of these invasions might likely ask, then the true character of such writers would become horrendously and immediately clear: "What right do you have to be invading and occupying our land?"

    No one can understand the reality on the basis of the West's honored 'historians' and 'journalists', because they're propagandists for the imperial system, which used to be British but now is American. The neoconservative New York Times Sunday Book Review section published, on 12 July 2015, a review from the neoconservative Christopher Dickey, the Foreign Editor of the neoconservative The Daily Beast 'news'-site, of the neoconservative Emma Sky's book The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq . He presented Iran as being America's enemy-in-chief, and presented especially "Qassim Suleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Force, the section of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for covert and overt operations in Lebanon, Syria and, above all, Iraq" as being America's enemy; and he wrote that:

    the betrayal of the Sunnis by the Baghdad government the Americans left behind has been crucial to recruiting by the self-­proclaimed caliphate. Many of those who had helped crush Al Qaeda in Iraq eight years ago have concluded that no one except ISIS will protect them from Suleimani's fighters and flunkies.

    To counter Iran in Iraq and prevent the alienation that created ISIS would have required a better ambassador than Hill and a more attentive State Department than the one run by Hillary Clinton. It would have required, perhaps, a thousand Emma Skys. But there was only one of those. And it would have meant many more years of enormous involvement on the ground, but the American people had no taste for that.

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

    Highly recommended!
    "All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.)"
    Notable quotes:
    "... All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.) ..."
    "... Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. ..."
    "... Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought? ..."
    "... The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for ..."
    "... Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd. ..."
    "... Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy. ..."
    "... I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising. ..."
    "... This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation. ..."
    "... The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.) ..."
    "... historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious) ..."
    "... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps. ..."
    "... First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power? ..."
    "... The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power? ..."
    "... I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama. ..."
    "... The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus. ..."
    "... The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence. ..."
    "... Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH. ..."
    "... On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation. ..."
    "... Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd. ..."
    "... Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa). ..."
    "... Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. ..."
    Oct 31, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    In an advertising campaign in 2008 the U.S. Air Force declared itself to be "Above All". The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933. It was a sign of things to come.

    On Thursday Masha Gessen watched the press briefing of White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and concluded :

    The press briefing could serve as a preview of what a military coup in this country would look like, for it was in the logic of such a coup that Kelly advanced his four arguments .
    1. Those who criticize the President don't know what they're talking about because they haven't served in the military . ...
    2. The President did the right thing because he did exactly what his generals told him to do . ...
    3. Communication between the President and a military widow is no one's business but theirs. ...
    4. Citizens are ranked based on their proximity to dying for their country. ...

    Gessen is late. The coup happened months ago. A military junta is in strong control of White House polices. It is now widening its claim to power.

    All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle , the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon's proxy defeated the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with a similar outcome.)

    On January 20, the first day of the Not-Hillary presidency , I warned:

    The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.

    With the help of the media the generals in the White House defeated their civilian adversary. In August the Trump ship dropped its ideological pilot . Steve Bannon went from board. Bannon's militarist enemy, National Security Advisor General McMaster, had won. I stated :

    A military junta is now ruling the United States

    and later explained :

    Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.

    The military took full control of White House processes and policies:

    Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands ... To control Trump the Junta filters his information input and eliminates any potentially alternative view ... The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing certain alternatives to him. The one that is most preferable to them, will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.

    With the power center captured the Junta starts to implement its ideology and to suppress any and all criticism against itself.

    On Thursday the 19th Kelly criticized Congresswoman Frederica Wilson of South Florida for hearing in (invited) on a phone-call Trump had with some dead soldiers wife:

    Kelly then continued his criticism of Wilson, mentioning the 2015 dedication of the Miramar FBI building, saying she focused in her speech that she "got the money" for the building.

    The video of the Congresswoman's speech (above link) proves that Kelly's claim was a fabrication. But one is no longer allowed to point such out. The Junta, by definition, does not lie. When the next day journalists asked the White House Press Secretary about Kelly's unjustified attack she responded:

    MS. SANDERS: If you want to go after General Kelly, that's up to you. But I think that that -- if you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that that's something highly inappropriate

    It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules the empire.

    ... ... ...

    If the soldiers do not work "for any other reason than that they love this country" why do they ask to be paid? Why is the public asked to finance 200 military golf courses ? Because the soldiers "love the country"? Only a few 10,000 of the 2,000,000 strong U.S. military will ever see an active front-line.

    And imagine the "wonderful joy" Kelly "got in his heart" when he commanded the illegal torture camp of Guantanamo Bay:

    Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. His response to the detainees' peaceful hunger strike in 2013 was punitive force-feeding, solitary confinement, and rubber bullets. Furthermore, he sabotaged efforts by the Obama administration to resettle detainees, consistently undermining the will of his commander in chief.

    Former U.S. Army Captain and now CIA director Mike Pompeo was educated at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is part of the Junta circle, installed to control the competition. Pompeo also wants to again feel the "wonderful joy". On Friday he promised that the CIA would become a "much more vicious agency". Instead of merely waterboarding 'terrorists' and drone-bombing brown families, Pompeo's more vicious CIA will rape the 'terrorist's' kids and nuke whole villages. Pompeo's remark was made at a get-together of the Junta and neo-conservative warmongers.

    On October 19 Defense Secretary General Mattis was asked in Congress about the recent incident in Niger during which, among others, several U.S. soldiers were killed. Mattis set (vid 5:29pm) a curious new metric for deploying U.S. troops:

    Any time we commit out troops anywhere it is based on a simple first question and that is - is the well-being of the American people sufficiently enhanced by putting our troops there , by putting our troops in a position to die?

    In his October 20 press briefing General Kelly also tried to explain why U.S. soldiers are in Niger:

    So why were they there ? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights ...

    Is the U.S. military really qualified to teach anyone how to respect human rights? Did it learn that from committing mass atrocities in about each campaign it ever fought?

    One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights" was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a dozen awards and decorations". The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"? Will anyone really buy that bridge?

    But who would dare to ask more about this? It is" highly inappropriate " to doubt whatever the military says. Soon that will change into "verboten". Any doubt, any question will be declared "fake news" and a sign of devious foreign influence. Whoever spreads such will be blocked from communicating.

    The military is now indeed "Above All". That air force slogan was a remake of a 1933 "Über Alles" campaign in Germany. One wonders what other historic similarities will develop from it.

    Posted by b on October 21, 2017 at 03:58 PM | Permalink

    nhs | Oct 21, 2017 4:10:12 PM | 1

    Why Donald Trump is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now

    Peter AU 1 | Oct 21, 2017 4:26:51 PM | 3

    The military junta rely on the US dollar as reserve currency for their lurks and perks. The more they take power, the faster this will slip away. So called allies will move towards China/Russia and other currencies. Dangerous times but the downfall of the US is gaining momentum.
    ruralito | Oct 21, 2017 4:30:08 PM | 4
    Cedant arma togae - Cicero
    les7 | Oct 21, 2017 4:30:38 PM | 5
    @1 While I understand the temptation to link Trump to Neo-con policies, I think it over simplifies the issue.

    Thierry Meyssan has a recent article in which he questions how seriously we should take the US's anti-Iran policy. In it he states "We have to keep in mind that Donald Trump is not a professional politician, but a real estate promoter, and that he acts like one. He gained his professional success by spreading panic with his outrageous statements and observing the reactions he had created amongst his competitors and his partners."

    That statement is a great summary of one of the key precepts of what I called 'asymmetrical leadership' - which I think characterizes Trumps leadership style (an application of asymmetrical warfare techniques to the political arena). This does not mean that the Junta has not taken over control. I would agree with b on this. However, the forms by which that control get expressed will still run through Trump and will still reflect his 'asymmetric' style.

    VietnamVet | Oct 21, 2017 4:32:33 PM | 6
    It does take someone on the other side of the world to give perspective. I don't think it is as much a military junta as things are falling apart. The generals are attempting to keep their corrupt war profits flowing. The media moguls still hate Donald Trump; only as an oligarch hates another. Donald Trump is firing up his base. Expect, the whole of the alt-right propaganda is false. It relies on the hatred of others. All he will do is speed up the splintering. If your home is foreclosed, flooded, polluted, burned down or blown apart; reality is slapping you in the face.
    Lochearn | Oct 21, 2017 4:51:42 PM | 7
    One of your most important posts, b. At first I thought it strange that you would quote Masha Gessen, an infamous anti-Putin journalist and Khodorkovsky fan, but then it didn't seem so strange. Gessen is a Zionist, therefore she is aligned with the CIA/Wall Street faction, which as you perceptively say lost out with Trump and Raqqa. I say Wall Street as opposed to corporate because, as I have pointed out before, non-financial corporates - and that includes most of the Dow Jones or FTSE - have fuck all say on anything except how they are going to meet next quarterly's earnings estimates. And the CIA is very close to Wall Street.

    What interests me is how this relates to Iran, on which both factions appear to be in agreement, but there must be nuances. The Saker published an article where,in my opinion, he failed to give enough weight to how circumstances around Iran have changed over the last decade. I see little green men in large green aircraft weaving their way down the Caspian Sea, not to mention invisible Chinese hardware in the sense of how did it get there, and a Europe which is in disarray with their tongues hanging out for deals with Iran. The success of the anti-Trump MSM narrative combined with fears of potentially millions of Iranian refugees would surely indicate this is the worst possible time to attack Iran. So how can they conjure a war out of this?

    les7 | Oct 21, 2017 5:49:02 PM | 9
    On a far more insidious note, one has to wonder what an radiological 'expert' was doing in Niger - thanks b for that important piece of info.

    When that info is combined with:
    1) US Special ops in Mali from 2006
    2) US operation Oasis Enabler (2009) looking to infiltrate and control Elite Malian army units
    3) March 2012 Coup brought to power American trained Capt. Amadou Sanogo
    4) French Operation Serval, at the request of the 'interim government' fights to control northern Malian territory and URANIUM mines along the Mali - Niger border (they said they fought ISIS but what they actually fought was a Tuareg separatist movement)

    together with the presence of ISIS (the US trained, evacuated from Syria version?) in the area... Ominous is hardly strong enough to describe the feeling...

    karlof1 | Oct 21, 2017 5:54:56 PM | 10
    China's leader, Xi, just outlined his nation's goals out to 2050, which Pepe Escobar nicely condensed for our consumption, http://www.atimes.com/article/xis-road-map-chinese-dream/ The full transcript can be read here, starting page middle to top, http://live.china.org.cn/2017/10/17/opening-ceremony-of-the-19th-cpc-national-congress/

    I start my comment by referencing these since the operational doctrine of the Outlaw US Empire is to keep any such challenges to its perceived dominance--and quest for total dominance--subdued to the point of insignificance. As you can clearly read, Xi, China, Putin, Russia, and their allies aren't going to allow any junta to stop their integration and development plans preparing their nations and region for the future--plans and thinking woefully absent from any sector of the Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps weapon development. The just completed Valdai Conference provides an excellent insight to the drama, the comments and visions are as important as they're powerful, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55882 I could pile more of the same for barflies to digest, but I don't think that's required.

    There's a very longstanding joke about the joining together of these two words--military intelligence--and for good reason, particularly within the Outlaw US Empire. I don't think anyone within the governmental establishment has any idea of what to do about the Eurasian/Muiltipolar Challenge other than trying to break it--no ideas of how to compete or join it so as to also profit from it. The reason for this as I see it is ideological--Zero Sumism and Randian junk economics is so deeply ingrained they've polluted minds to the point where their blinded and unable to think outside the box they've caged themselves within: Hoisted by their own petard as the saying goes. They just can't accept Win/Win as something viable--sharing is for sissies and commies. Problem is that well over half of humanity sees Win/Win as eminently viable and far more welcome than the demonstrably failed Zero Sum Game promoted by Randian political-economists and enforced through the barrel a gun.

    The deep-seated problems plaguing the USA do have solutions, but they are not those being forwarded by the very radical conservatives now in charge of Congress and many statehouses. And the junta members share their mindsets. So, I see the domestic situation continuing to spiral further out-of-control with no sign anywhere of a countervailing power arising with the potential to steer the ship-of-state away from the massive reef it's rapidly heading for.

    There might be a surprise in store from the junta, however--it might just take on a bit of the massive corruption plaguing the USA by attacking the Clinton Foundation and its related sewage. Although, that just solves one part of a huge host of problems.

    pB | Oct 21, 2017 6:25:48 PM | 11
    @karlof1 10

    thanks for the link to pepe's take on the speech.

    funny thing that just accord to me that i had not thought of for nearly ten years, one of the initial "benefits" of the state of Israel, was the cutting off of Africa from asia, and its pretty glaring that a project to connect Asia Africa and Europe does not include the logical land route as well.

    Clueless Joe | Oct 21, 2017 6:28:30 PM | 12
    At least in the times of Caesar and Augustus, military junta who seized power could claim to be effective and victorious military, able to crush significant enemy armies. The current top military in the US were at best kiddies the last time the US actually managed to defeat a truly powerful enemy, back in 1945. (though this criticism can apply to all major powers)
    sejomoje | Oct 21, 2017 6:39:09 PM | 13
    Ah, Masha Gessen, literally cancer. Who elevated her? I find it interesting that she does the "translating" for the CIA-scripted FX show "The Americans", a show which has probably more effectively demonized Russians for the cud-chewing crowd than the sum total of Cold War propaganda since the 50s AND the daily Russian hate columns in Wapo et al that trickle down to the Buzzfeed crowd.

    We need to start calling the CIA traitors, actual traitors. Masha Gessen is CIA, CIA ghostwrites for most MSM. Traitors all. But even without the constant hagiographies, would people start to get it? "Americans", I mean?

    karlof1 | Oct 21, 2017 6:46:49 PM | 14
    Here's a bit of what Hamid Karzai at the Valdai Club had to say about what the junta accomplished in Afghanistan:

    "Today, I am one of the greatest critics of the US policy in Afghanistan. Not because I am anti-Western, I am a very Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western. I am very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love their culture. But I am against the US policy because it is not succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise of extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against the US policy because on their watch, under their total control of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence and the Afghan military, of all that they have, that super power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come Daesh emerged in Afghanistan 14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that mass of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world not as cooperative with America in Afghanistan today as it was before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions of the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work in Afghanistan? How come China does not view it the same way? How come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted in Afghanistan?

    "Therefore, as an Afghan in the middle of this great game, I propose to our ally, the United States, the following: we will all succeed if you tell us that you have failed. We would understand. Russia would understand, China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody would understand. India would understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs of failure there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?"

    I doubt the junta will do any better than its performed in Afghanistan because it only knows how to play the game Karzai describes. Link is same as one above.

    AriusArmenian | Oct 21, 2017 7:24:02 PM | 15
    We can now add the Air Force being 'Above All' to the supremacist 'exceptional and indispensable' lunatic attitude in the US that is definitely psychologically the same as another people that thought they were 'Uber Alles'.
    Red Ryder | Oct 21, 2017 7:36:54 PM | 16
    B,

    You stated: The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one).

    I differ. JFK was taken out by a combined US Naval Intel and CIA plot. The beneficiary was the MIC. Eleven days later, LBJ reversed the executive order by JFK to end the US involvement in Nam. For 11 more years the Military got what it wanted--war.

    LBJ got what he wanted--the Presidency. The Cuban-Americans got what they wanted--revenge for failure at Bay of Pigs by Kennedy. The Mafia got what they wanted--revenge for Bobby Kennedy.

    One other thing about the counter-insurgency. It was not so much Military. They waited while the IC ran the leaks and counter-insurgency. Then,Trump fell into the Military's arms. He had been cut off from his base and key supporters and had to empower them by obedience to their plans. Foreign policy is what they wanted. He can still have all the domestic policy he can get, which is basically nothing much. A SC justice, some EOs, and all the Twitter-shit he can muster.

    Dr. Bill Wedin | Oct 21, 2017 7:42:38 PM | 17
    American democracy is indeed dead. The US Military's only real victory after WWII. After Vietnam, the generals said: "Freedom of speech and of the press and of assembly and the right to trial by jury and all that crap has got to go! And they got rid of it all! The Junta is in control. And the only positive aspect is that we have a rolling Fukushima disaster in Trump, who could implode and then explode in a nuclear Holocaust any second from all the humiliation and investigations crushing in on him--if the Junta did not keep tight control over all the information coming in to him. So you better leave them in place or... BAM! That's the blackmail. But it only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear arsenal. If someone else with a 2nd launch key were required to agree, the Junta would no longer be needed to "protect" us Mafia-style.
    ben | Oct 21, 2017 8:05:47 PM | 19
    Military junta or not b, make no mistake, the real power behind the throne are a cabal of billionaires who buy their way by co-opting the politicians who make the laws. Democracy is indeed dead here in the U$A. It's now a full-blown Oligarchy.
    Perimetr | Oct 21, 2017 8:26:46 PM | 20
    Re Bill Wedin at 18, you wrote "the blackmail only works as long as Trump has sole authority to launch our nuclear arsenal."

    Authority to launch also includes predelegation to some of the highest ranking military, in the event of a perceived nuclear attack, in which the National Command Authority is disrupted and unable to give launch orders. However, this leaves open the question as to whether the President could be bypassed in the process.

    Trident sub commanders also have the necessary launch codes on board to initiate a nuclear strike. Yes, the codes are under lock and key, but the key is on board.

    Don Bacon | Oct 21, 2017 8:32:11 PM | 21
    The current US militarism also reflects on the kneeling during the national anthem, which is also an ode to the flag in a war setting -- "by the rockets red glare" etc. President Trump has said the protests (against police killing blacks) are unpatriotic and disrespectful of military veterans. Trump has initiated a petition: "The President has asked for a list of supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and support."

    Randolph Bourne (see #8) had some thoughts on this.

    . . . We reverence not our country but the flag. We may criticize ever so severely our country, but we are disrespectful to the flag at our peril. It is the flag and the uniform that make men's heart beat high and fill them with noble emotions, not the thought of and pious hopes for America as a free and enlightened nation. It cannot be said that the object of emotion is the same, because the flag is the symbol of the nation, so that in reverencing the American flag we are reverencing the nation. For the flag is not a symbol of the country as a cultural group, following certain ideals of life, but solely a symbol of the political State, inseparable from its prestige and expansion.
    financial matters | Oct 21, 2017 9:18:09 PM | 23
    ""All along Trump has been the candidate of the military. The other two power centers of the power triangle, the corporate and the executive government (CIA), had gone for Clinton. The Pentagon proxy won over the CIA proxy. (Last months' fight over Raqqa was similar - with the same outcome.)""

    I agree with this division of power and would add that Trump is also the candidate of the police. I see the media though as more being in the CIA/corporate camps. I think the military backing is necessary as you mention to take the CIA down a few notches. So far I'd say the result in Syria is promising.

    I think this CIA/corporate power has to be dealt with first to give progressive/socialist ideas much of a chance. It's a fine line but the military is supposed to protect against enemies foreign and domestic.

    The corporate part of course has huge power over Congress.

    Yul | Oct 21, 2017 9:34:35 PM | 24
    @ b

    a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist"

    This is Niger - Remember back in 2002/2003 : The Italian letter and Yellow Cake. These days we have Areva mining uranium in Niger Hence the French military offering both security and protecting the "assets" of French Establishment. Those soldiers were not ambushed but were conducting a raid and something went wrong!

    Anon | Oct 21, 2017 10:28:24 PM | 30
    If there was a coup Masha would be singing praises free n the rooftop because the waragenda she is paid to shill for would be back on. The fact that the lying bitch is gnashing her teeth would suggest that the NeoCon agenda, especially for war against Russia, has been derailed. Fuck you Masha. You suck.
    mo' better | Oct 21, 2017 10:29:51 PM | 31
    This is great news! I hope the military junta smashes the CIA into little tiny pieces. Why? Because the US military is in its most easily defeatable state ever - they haven't won a war in generations, their generals are armchair soldiers most who have never seen combat, and they have a fondness for massively overpriced technological pieces of MIC enriching garbage for weapons. The CIA owns the media, and without an effective propaganda arm, the military will only ever face another Vietnam.
    Don Bacon | Oct 21, 2017 11:02:22 PM | 32
    On the topic of losing generals I'm reminded of Harry Truman. A couple of Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
    > It's worse now. Most generals got where they are by sucking up, not performing.
    > Donald Trump is no Harry Truman, for sure.
    peter | Oct 21, 2017 11:59:56 PM | 35
    Remember CNN? That fake MSM outlet that never tells the truth? Well, they have been skewering Kelly since he ran his mouth about that Florida congresswoman. So have the other outlets. Huckabee-Sanders is now something of a national joke after her comments. Kelly's shit doesn't hold up and he's been called out repeatedly. "It is now "highly inappropriate" to even question the Junta that rules over the empire." Bullshit.
    Ralphieboy | Oct 22, 2017 3:37:33 AM | 36
    Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a counter-tweet for almost anything Trump says, including one criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
    Ralphieboy | Oct 22, 2017 3:57:25 AM | 37
    Look in the Twitter archives and you will find a Trump tweet criticizing four-star general Colin Powell...
    Heros | Oct 22, 2017 4:41:13 AM | 38
    "The slogan and symbol of the campaign was similar to the German "Deutschland Über Alles" campaign of 1933."

    This is once again typical anti-German propaganda that was used to get both WWI and WWII started, and is now being used against Putin and Russia as well as nationalists across Europe and the Anglo world. In 1933 France still had control of the Saar and the Rhineland, Germany was saddled with monumental war debts, and Hitler was clearly not running a campaign on the slogan "Germany should rule the world", which is what the Anglo-Zionist narrative would have us believe. The meaning "Über Alles" was clearly "Germany First". That means look out for the German people first. The Weimar government clearly wasn't doing this. Call it Hitler's "MAGA".

    The real truth is that it is this same US military industrial complex who worked for Roosevelt, Churchill, and their Zionist masters to get the second world war started, and who now are desperate for a third. They are sadistic, murdering globalists. Hitler was a nationalist. He never planned to rule the world the same way the Zionists already do, as is evidenced by the never ending strife in the Middle East, and their ongoing tribal civil war which is also being waged within the US government.

    This tribal civil war is also spilling over into places like Las Vegas, which clearly is run by the Jewish Mafia. There still is no plausible motive given for the shooting incident, but we know that the owners of MGM would never willingly have allowed this to happen on their own property. So it clearly was a hit, and with Area 51 down the road and all the MIC contractors in Vegas, it is highly unlikely that they were not involved or at least aware of the operation.

    Here is a LV company where for $3500 you can fly around the desert in a Helicopter shooting up targets with a SAW-249.

    https://machinegunsvegas.com/product/machine-gun-helicopter/

    How is it that this company can get away with this without MIC participation? Could this helicopter be available for uses at the right price?

    ralphieboy | Oct 22, 2017 6:11:44 AM | 40
    The original meaning of "Deutschland über alles" came about in the early 1800's when there was no united Germany: it meant that there should be a united Germany above all the minor German states, duchies and principalities that existed at the time.
    fx | Oct 22, 2017 7:08:30 AM | 41
    For those who want to avoid being datamined by nhs, the original link about "Why Donald Trump is the perfect tool in the hands of neocons right now" is here: https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/
    fx | Oct 22, 2017 7:10:36 AM | 42
    "One of the soldiers who were killed in Niger while "teaching how to respect human rights" was a 39 year old "chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist" with "more than a dozen awards and decorations".

    The U.S. military sent a highly qualified WMD specialist on a "routine patrol" in Niger to teach local soldiers "to respect human rights" due to which presumably "the well-being of the American people" would be "sufficiently enhanced"?" It's all about the uranium in Agades, then?

    Jack Frost | Oct 22, 2017 7:49:08 AM | 43
    Trump is either very gullible and ignorant (most likely) or he is diabolically clever. Everything he does - every action, every appointment, every utterance - could not be better formulated to undermine the Zioamerican empire. Which is kind of what he promised to do.
    Camillus O'Byrne | Oct 22, 2017 7:52:58 AM | 44
    The brazen arrogance of these jerks like Kelly is stupefying. Infuriatingly shameless.

    The guy has never done an honest day's work IN HIS LIFE, has had his snout in the public trough continuously and has materially contributed to the ruination of his country. STFU you stupid twat. He is also a scumbag that no doubt had a lot to do with his son's demise - imagine being this a-hole's son?

    These clowns call themselves "General" and we are supposed to think that puts them in the same class as a Wellington or a Caesar or Napoleon? They were all first class bastards, ruthless, but fine Generals. Tough, bold, audacious leaders of men and brilliant strategists, who took risks, including with their own lives. Hell, the Prussian officer training system turned out Quartermasters that were better field Generals than these American frauds.

    As I have said in another thread, the US has none of the martial virtues. Not as a people, not as military institutions, not as individual soldiers or sailors (their airmen are obviously cowards or psychopaths so not necessary even to consider in this context). Virtues such as steadfastness in adversity, discipline when under fire, self-sacrifice for comrades and the cause. Not saying anything about the morality of any particular cause here, just what makes a professional army. To compare the US military with Rome's Legions, say, is laughable. The biggest difference between these American whackers is that in real armies individuals are expected to be able to contend with a worthy adversary. To take risks. To fight when it is HARD to fight. Even Rome's patricians understood that every now and then they had to expose themselves to danger if they were to have any honour, as Crassus, richest of them all, found out very dramatically when he met his end at the head of the Syrian Legions. (Defeated by the Iranians! - they've seen 'em all come and go). Windbags like Kelly wouldn't know what honour is.

    The US has NEVER fought an adversary on anything like equal terms. They preen themselves about WW2. I call BS. They waited until the Soviets had broken the back of the most fearsome war machine in history, the Wehrmacht and then faced teenagers and old men in France. On the occasions when they did face professional German troops they had their whiney arses kicked. As for the Pacific war, they stood off island after island and rained a stupendous amount of naval shells and bombs on the Japanese garrisons to the point where they were insane with the cacophany and pure physical terror to turn your bowels to water, before setting foot on them, while the aerial destruction of Japanese cities is one of the great atrocities in history, disgraceful and completely without honour. I suspect a disproportionate number of US military casualties are due to being run over by a forklift, training accidents, friendly fire, syphilis or fragging of their own.

    The qualities the US military (they don't deserve the epithet "army") exemplifies are cowardice, incompetence, viciousness and wanton destructiveness. No wonder, as the corruption (plenty of fiscal as well as moral) starts at the top with the Kellys and drips down like a putrid slime from there.

    He and his ilk are just a bunch of murderous bags of human excrement. No decent person can have anything but contempt for them.

    Petri Krohn | Oct 22, 2017 9:02:58 AM | 45
    It is little surprise if a junta has taken over. Many Democrats would support a military junta over Trump. Now we are hearing similar calls from Republicans.

    One of the latest is this opinion piece by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post from October 12, 2017: Republicans, it's time to panic The Washington Examiner has a short summary:

    Ex-Bush adviser Michael Gerson tells Republicans: 'It's time to panic'

    Michael Gerson, who's also a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote in an op-ed Friday that "the security of our country -- and potentially the lives of millions of people abroad -- depends on Trump being someone else entirely."

    "The time for whispered criticisms and quiet snickering is over. The time for panic and decision is upon us. The thin line of sane, responsible advisers at the White House -- such as Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson -- could break at any moment," Gerson wrote. "The American government now has a dangerous fragility at its very center. Its welfare is as thin as an eggshell -- perhaps as thin as Donald Trump's skin."

    The op-ed comes amid Trump's feud with Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who warned that the president's reckless threats could lead to "World War III."

    "I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying to contain him," Corker told the New York Times.

    arze | Oct 22, 2017 9:48:36 AM | 46
    At this point in history to be US president is to be a criminal. An "autonomous" US president has not existed at least since JFK, perhaps not since Lincoln. Kelley, like his boss, routinely "clowns" the media, and however unctuous Kelley's remarks are, they fit into that mode.

    Our generals are weak men. If they weren't, they wouldn't need a Trump, or a whatever to run for office and win that office.

    They can't run and win any better than they can conduct warfare as a rational means to a rational end; and as the post eloquently points out, again: they are experts at rape, murder, war crimes, mayhem and destruction. The ubiquitous propaganda to hide that is all they have that saves them from the penal colony where they belong.

    Their project to rule the world would be as successful as any "they destroyed it in order to save it" attempts.

    MG's fragmented consciousness permit her to be rational at times, and irresponsible at others.

    Don Bacon | Oct 22, 2017 10:02:48 AM | 47
    re: Presiding over a population of detainees not charged or convicted of crimes, over whom he had maximum custodial control, Kelly treated them with brutality. . .

    The US needed go show progress in the "war on terror" and one way was to accumulate some prisoners of the "war." CIA operatives were sent to the tribal areas of Afghanistan & Pakistan with cash to entice "bounty hunters." It was easy, because every tribal chief had enemies, which he would capture and present for a big payoff. So the Guantanamo (Gitmo) prison was set up in Cuba and soon accumulated 7-800 "detainees" who were bullied and tortured.

    None of them were tried because there was no evidence they had done anything wrong. The Supreme Court ruled that they should have a judicial process but (except a few cases) it was never done. Most of the prisoners detainees were released, including a 13 yo boy and a 92 yo man, and about 200 remained. I guess it's less now.

    Meanwhile the Washington politicians were able to crow about all those dangerous people in Gitmo, and prattle about the "recidivism" danger if and when they would be released. What were they supposed to do, forgive and forget all the terrible treatment they had received?? So yes, Kelly is scum, but that's not unusual for a general.

    Noirette | Oct 22, 2017 10:07:12 AM | 48
    The ground work, or state-of-affairs that lead to what one might call a soft military coup in the US (see b) = within what, at one extreme could be called Ayn-Randian rabid individualism, and at the other a sort of neo-liberal capitalism which is nevertheless highly 'socialist' in the sense re-distributive from the center of power (if only to create a slave/subservient class and prevent uprisings), there is NO public space for 'solidarity' within (besides familial, or close, etc.)

    Therefore, the belonging or 'solidarity' is activated only facing an outside enemy who is personalised as e.g. communist, ugly dictator, intends to attack the US, poisons babies, etc. That gives the military an edge.. Then natch, historically, dying empires invest in the double prong, military conquest + internal control (can be vicious), ain't flash news.

    .... I don't think it is all that clear. Corps or better conglomerates of power like 'the media', the 'silicons', banking and finance, Energy, electronics, Big Pharma, etc. are politcally inclined (say!) to some form of corporate fascism, > bought pols from all-sides of any-aisle. Their ties to the military / milit. type power at home are not very strong, they may collaborate on occasion. Some of these 'industries' fear domination that goes beyond soft power and they loathe sanctions - think about who/what/how is doing lucrative deals and has continuing biz success in Iraq, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, etc. - NOT US cos./corps.

    To me this looks more like total disorganisation than anything else.

    J | Oct 22, 2017 10:53:49 AM | 49
    What a load of hooey!

    First, if the only two choices were the Executive CIA and the Military "Junta" with Trump why would we continue the farce of elections? And if the elections were pre-determined and the ruling Junta took over in a coup, then how and why is the CIA out of power?

    Secondly, same question will be here for you when a) the military and Trump get booted with impeachment, or b) when the next election comes.

    Van Morrison once penned "politics, superstition and religion go hand in hand." It never fails, those out of power go from being logical, critical thinkers to becoming outlandish bores who exaggerate things and fabricate what they see. It's called delusion.

    Don Bacon | Oct 22, 2017 11:22:03 AM | 51
    @J 49
    The "farce of elections" is accurate because Trump is not doing what he claimed he would do, not unusual actually. It was Trump who sprang the "junta" on us. And who claimed that the CIA would be out of power?
    Don Bacon | Oct 22, 2017 11:25:38 AM | 52
    Kelly: So why were they there? They're there working with partners, local -- all across Africa -- in this case, Niger -- working with partners, teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights

    These guys didn't die teaching, nor in combat in Niger, they were (according to news reports) trying to track down an accomplice of one Abu Adnan al-Sahraoui. In other words they were doing police work in a foreign country, an absolutely ridiculous task which they were not trained or able to do and which put their lives needlessly in danger. This criticism applies to the whole "war on terror" which has proven to be a tragic farce (if there can be such a thing).

    dahoit | Oct 22, 2017 11:37:28 AM | 53
    b is quoting macha gessen? You got be kidding. MSN will look his site in homage. In what way MSM will JFK look CIA approval? Traitors.
    Jackrabbit | Oct 22, 2017 12:38:59 PM | 54
    I used to think it was a counter-coup also. But sheep-dog Sanders and Trump's having supported Hillary in 2008 among other things caused me to conclude that it all bullshit. I now believe that the hyper-partisanship is just a show. The political system in the US is designed to prevent any real populist from gaining power. We are being played. Trump is the Republican Obama.
    Piotr Berman | Oct 22, 2017 1:10:28 PM | 56
    Carry on, nothing to see here.

    I really think that this is the case in this instance. Trump is bellicose and erratic. In the realm of foreign policy and military, it yielded one positive change: his obsession with ISIS led to huge decrease of fighting between "moderate opposition" in Syria with "SAA and allies", allowing the latter to effectively reduce the territory controlled by ISIS, similarly, Obama's efforts to sideline "sectarian forces trained by Iran" from fighting with ISIS were apparently abandoned with similar effect. But otherwise, no "reset" with Russia, clown show concerning the nuclear program of North Korea, berating allies who spend insufficiently to fight threats that they do not have, increasing domestic military budget (again, to fight threats that we do not have) and so on. Formation of the new axis of evil, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela is a notable novelty.

    Trump was so contradictory is his campaign statements that it is almost amazing that ANY positive element can be discerned. At the time, I paid attention to his praises of John Bolton, a proud walrus-American who communicates using bellowing, in other words, resembles a walrus both in the way he looks, but also in the way he speaks.

    Needless to say, Dotard in Chief can exercise power only through underlings that may try to make sense of what he says. In some cases, like reforming American healthcare according to his promises, this is flatly impossible. So generals are seemingly in the same position, and of course, when in doubt, they do what they would do anyway.

    Lawrence Smith | Oct 22, 2017 1:22:16 PM | 57
    Not that I am any more or less in the loop than any of these fine commenters, but what pops into my mind when reading of the ambush of the four special forces servicemen is the crash of the helicopter that took out so many of the seal team six who supposedly took out Osama. Maybe they knew too much would be my guess. Why else would they put such a knowledgable specialist out on the perimeter? Makes no sense. Offing your own is part and parcel in the military. Heroes of convenience.
    Jackrabbit | Oct 22, 2017 1:39:09 PM | 58
    What seems to have been lost in the discussion is what exactly the "counter-coup" is all about.

    1. During the Obama years, "successes" like Lybia and Ukraine were matched by "failures" like the lost proxy war for Syria and pushing Russia into the arms of China. The new 'Cold War' makes US nationalism more important as 'hot' conflicts become more likely.

    2. Obama/Clinton-led civilian authority was abusing power to promote an "Empire-first" vision of governance, Obama/Clinton:

    >> replaced/retired many military officers;

    >> placed US resources/forces in a support role ("leading from behind") ;

    >> grew a 'radical center' (aka "Third Way") that sought to undermine traditional nationalist/patriotism via immigration and divisive 'wedge issues'.

    The excuse for this was that while US hands were tied (because public wouldn't support further adventurism after Iraq) close allies could push forward. But the new Cold War has changed the calculus.

    The US isn't giving up on Empire. It's just a different type of Empire for a different type of environment. When Trump talks about "draining the swamp" I think he merely refers to foreign influence.

    So Trump pivots US policy based on Obama's record (as Obama did off Bush's record), and the next President will pivot off Trump's record, but the direction is always the same.

    Red Ryder | Oct 22, 2017 2:34:25 PM | 59
    Trump has one ally and that is the 65million voters who put him into office. He surrendered his top people. Saker says it was lack of character. I think when they point the gun at you, your family, your closest friends in your life, you acquiesce. They even took from him Keith Schiller, his personal security man for years. Kelly forced him out of the WH.

    Trump is powerless except when he functions as Leader of the rallies. As President, even with the cabal running the Oval Office, they all are limited by the Shadow Government, Deep State, IC, Khazarian Matrix. No President is a free man empowered to act.

    He now is focused on what is possible. Perhaps that will be a tax cut and a few more SC justices and a few score of judges for the fed district courts. Those don't interfere with Financial Power and MIC and the Hegemony of Empire.

    There is one hope. Putin + Xi.
    And we know the limits they face.

    Inside the Tyranny of American government, there is no hope. During the Trump time Putin and Xi have to make the most of the Swamp creating their own problems. It is that moment of opportunity, though it looks bleak.

    One thing for certain, the US military does not want a direct war. It wants more of these terror conflicts. Africa will become huge over the next few years. Graham is already selling it big. Trillions of dollars is what is the goal.

    SE Asia and Africa are the new big "markets" for MIC. ISIS/AQ are the product. War is the service industry being sold as the "solution".

    The Long War of anti-terror is the scam Smedley Butler told us about in the thirties.

    -- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

    War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

    I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

    I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

    There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

    It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

    I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

    I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long.

    I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

    During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

    CD Waller | Oct 22, 2017 2:39:29 PM | 60
    On the bright side, members of Congress are at least nominally elected. Four star Generals, not so much. It's still a felony carrying a prison term of 5 to 10 years per incident to lie to Congress. The military have no precedent to recommend them either as a source of information or in their decision making ability. They are way out of their depth when it comes to administering a nation.

    In none of their unwarranted invasions (all the result of bad information and poor judgment) of other nations have they been successful the day after the bombs stopped falling.

    bob | Oct 22, 2017 3:21:56 PM | 61
    IDIOTS!!! you forget the fact that if clinton won you would first be glowing GREEN and now dead. On Oct 16th 2016 Putin said "if hillary wins its WW3" on you tube. guess what we are alive and have to deal with that taxevader trump. we will survive!
    james | Oct 22, 2017 4:04:30 PM | 62
    @57 lawrence... plausible... thanks..truth eventually comes out..
    Castellio | Oct 22, 2017 5:05:46 PM | 63
    @16, @22

    The time has long passed since one can ignore JFK's failed insistence on the inspections of the illegal Israeli nuclear weapons program at Dimona, and then his sudden death. Factoring Israel into the equation greatly simplifies understanding the make-up of the Warren Commission, LBJ's about turn on the relation to the illegal nuclear weapons program and his reaction to the attack on the Liberty, and the evolution of US politics more generally.

    One would be more pressed to argue why one thinks it is not a primary cause.

    Fidelios Automata | Oct 22, 2017 11:37:16 PM | 64
    We voted for change and as usual, we got more of the same. All I can say is thank God it's not Hillary in the White House. At least Trump's not spoiling for a war with Russia.
    Danny801 | Oct 23, 2017 11:09:10 AM | 65
    Democracy has been dead in America for a long time. I'd rather Kelly run the country than Hillary Clinton. She would have us all annihilated in a war with Russia and China
    ian | Oct 23, 2017 5:15:48 PM | 66
    It's going to be hard to fight a junta. The military is at least halfway competent, something that can't be said for either the administration or congress. Look at this latest flap - on the one side you have Wilson the rodeo clown, on the other you have Trump, who can't resist the urge to pop off on twitter.

    Then you have Kelly, who at least comes off like an adult. Before people start pointing to all the nefarious things the military is doing, let me just say I'm talking about perception.

    This all seems like Rome all over.

    Shyaku | Oct 23, 2017 10:06:35 PM | 67
    Maybe this sums it up: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#World_War_I

    - Regards as always, Shyaku.

    NemesisCalling | Oct 23, 2017 10:32:39 PM | 68
    @59 Ryder

    Good post sans the Africa bit. They are having a tough time explaining the Niger debacle to people. I don't think African conflicts have the same glamorous draw as MENA conflicts. Once the economy goes to shit, it will be an even tougher sell.

    Trump is walking a narrow line. He has not brought us into a war with either Russia or NoKo...yet. This deserves some praise. The media blitz against Trump has always had a twofold reasoning behind it: it puts pressure on his ego to acquiesce and, two, if he doesn't, the public has been inoculated against feeling too bad when a lone-gunmen puts a bullet in his brain. I guess if you believe that, as I do, it explains why even a bumbling policy is a positive aspect of a Trump presidency, instead of the true-believer approach from Hillary and her ilk. There really is no other choice. It's either war or watch the empire crumble. The true believers might have chosen the former, but President Trump, I believe, has sabotaged that possibility. So take all the Trump-bashers in here with a grain or salt. They are asking for the stars, but watching the empire's police implode suits me just fine.

    "But the white supremacists...KKK!" What a fucking joke.

    dmorista | Oct 24, 2017 7:57:57 AM | 69
    Moon of Alabama always writes interesting and insightful critiques of the Deep State, the military, and the imperialist/war party, but falls flat on his face in his naive faith in the supposed anti-establishment, populist, and America First Nationalist proclivities of Donald Trump, and his arch-reactionary Svengali Steve Bannon. There is indeed at least one major split in the ranks of the ruling class, but to present Trump and Bannon as either valiant figures struggling for the national good, or noble isolated men surrounded by vipers and traitors is absurd.

    Now, in its late imperial decline, the U.S. has become unable to continue to exercise hegemony, the way it became accustomed to in the first 70+ years in the Post-WW 2 period. The number one Client/Ally/Master, Israel and their deeply embedded 5th Column in the U.S., the Zionists with their associated Pro-Zionist factions within the War Party, now nearly directly and openly controls U.S. foreign policy and military actions in the regions that the Likudnik faction in Israel cares about (i.e. the Levant, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa).

    Hollowed out economically and industrially the U.S. Empire is clearly on the way out. The various factions fighting for control of policy seem to be oblivious to this basic fact. The actual situation is similar to that the U.S. participated in during period from the late 1800s - WW 2; the declining hegemon accustomed to calling the shots in international affairs (then the British Empire, now the U.S.), ends up overextended and committed in far too many areas, with declining resources and domestic solidarity to dedicate to the tasks; the rising hegemon (then the U.S. now China) is still focused on issues of internal and external economic development and the exercise of regional power. China is already either equal in power to the U.S. or more powerful and will only continue to grow in power as the U.S. continues to decline. The Israelis/Zionists fully realize that the U.S. would not survive another disastrous war (like the air war they want the U.S. to wage against Iran, the U.S. does not have the capability to conduct a land war against Iran) intact. They are willing to try to force the issue to achieve one more step in their plan to establish "Eretz Israel" whose territory would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates and from the Sinai to Turkey. Their plans are just as crazy as those of the NeoCons and the NeoLiberals and their endless disastrous wars; and Trump/Bannon are their agents in the U.S.

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
    "... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
    "... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
    "... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
    Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

    Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

    Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

    The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

    Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

    Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

    These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.

    Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org .

    [Oct 29, 2017] The difference between the Deep State and shadow government

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shadow government refers to the personnel who are unaffected by change in elected officials and to the people who manipulate those personnel. ..."
    "... Deep state refers to the military-intelligence institutions that are relatively free of control through standard mechanisms such as oversight and budgetary accounting. ..."
    "... So-called "conspiracy theories", any theory different from the official statement, have historically been more accurate than official statements which are always designed to cover up official crimes and make those in power look good. Hence, very few folks today believe official statements. ..."
    Oct 29, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Matthew_Boston 95p · 1 day ago

    Here is a very good video on the Shadow Government by someone who knows. Excellent graphics in his (Kevin Shipp) video. All explained very well, if a little fast. The money that goes into the Deep State is insane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092GA
    rnbeal 61p · 11 hours ago
    Shadow government refers to the personnel who are unaffected by change in elected officials and to the people who manipulate those personnel.

    Deep state refers to the military-intelligence institutions that are relatively free of control through standard mechanisms such as oversight and budgetary accounting.

    participant2943 86p · 8 hours ago
    So-called "conspiracy theories", any theory different from the official statement, have historically been more accurate than official statements which are always designed to cover up official crimes and make those in power look good. Hence, very few folks today believe official statements.

    [Oct 27, 2017] Censorship in a new clothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... "[T]he majority of students had no idea that algorithms were filtering the news content they saw on Facebook and Google. When asked if Facebook shows every news item, posted by organizations or people, in a users' newsfeed, only 24 percent of those surveyed were aware that Facebook prioritizes certain posts and hides others. Similarly, only a quarter of respondents said Google search results would be different for two different people entering the same search terms at the same time" ..."
    Oct 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Our Famously Free Press

    "Platforms are not strategies, and they won't save news" [Mary Hamilton, Medium ]. "Seriously. If someone else's algorithm change could kill your traffic and/or your business model, then you're already dead."

    "Building trust online by partnering with the International Fact Checking Network" [ Google ]. Google (and Facebook) have more money than God. How come they have to outsource this stuff? Nevertheless: "Today we're announcing a new partnership with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at The Poynter Institute. As a nonpartisan organization, IFCN is committed to promoting excellence in fact checking and building a community of fact checkers around the world. IFCN has developed a widely accepted Code of Principles for fact check organizations. Signatories range from the Associated Press to the Washington Post, PolitiFact and Factcheck.org, to Correctiv (Germany), Aos Fatos (Brazil), and Africa Check."

    "[T]he majority of students had no idea that algorithms were filtering the news content they saw on Facebook and Google. When asked if Facebook shows every news item, posted by organizations or people, in a users' newsfeed, only 24 percent of those surveyed were aware that Facebook prioritizes certain posts and hides others. Similarly, only a quarter of respondents said Google search results would be different for two different people entering the same search terms at the same time" [ The Atlantic ].

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

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
    "... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
    "... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
    "... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
    "... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
    "... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
    "... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
    "... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
    "... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
    "... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
    "... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
    Oct 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Back in October of 2016, I wrote a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)

    In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy" is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists" and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.

    I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details. Suffice to say we've gone from Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are "indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate media is presenting as evidence of "an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook. In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that "white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.

    At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September 11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs of abating. As of now, the United States has been in a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been implemented throughout the EU . Not just the notorious American police but police throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf shooters," and other "extremists."

    Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter "Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa "domestic terrorists."

    Hosting corporations have shut down several white supremacist and neo-Nazi websites , along with their access to online fundraising. Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. Twitter, Facebook, and Google have teamed up to cleanse the Internet of "extremist content," "hate speech," and whatever else they arbitrarily decide is inappropriate. YouTube, with assistance from the ADL (which deems pro-Palestinian activists and other critics of Israel "extremists") is censoring "extremist" and "controversial" videos , in an effort to "fight terrorist content online." Facebook is also collaborating with Israel to thwart "extremism," "incitement of violence," and whatever else Israel decides is "inflammatory."

    In the UK, simply reading "terrorist content" is punishable by fifteen years in prison. Over three thousand people were arrested last year for publishing "offensive" and "menacing" material.

    Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate journals.

    I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.

    What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).

    As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing (except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."

    * * *

    Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.

    In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes, not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist," the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations, mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."

    A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is." The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal. Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned, the more flexible and commodifiable the better.

    See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.

    Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really. Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies, the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity, or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have "culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling their products in different markets.)

    The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions (like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).

    Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).

    We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it, but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.

    Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media.

    I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values. None of these insurgencies will be successful.

    Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.

    This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists, white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs to the Corporatocracy.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

    Malla , October 20, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

    Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the 'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany, Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease program, which on the surface never makes any sense.

    However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.

    Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called 'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education, Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social Realism' movement.

    These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as 'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more murderous Soviet Union.

    Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it. Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed. Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but released to the people later.

    Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West. This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles movement.

    Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc

    Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about (it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet experiment ended only to be continued in China.

    NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.

    The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other words Communism, that is the long term plan.

    My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century (feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by greedy evil corporates.

    Seamus Padraig , October 20, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT
    Once again, C.J. nails it!
    Issac , October 21, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT
    "Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests."

    That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.

    peterAUS , October 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT
    @Issac

    That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles.

    Agree.

    Wizard of Oz , October 25, 2017 at 4:32 am GMT
    @Malla

    There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?

    edNels , October 25, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT
    Finally an article that tells as it is! and the first comment is a great one too. It is right there to see for anybody with eyes screwed in right.
    wayfarer , October 25, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
    "Three Things Cannot Be Long Hidden: the Sun, the Moon, and the Truth." – Buddha
    ThereisaGod , October 25, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT
    Regarding Trump being "a clown" the jury is out:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article198481.html

    .. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment lies as truth.

    That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that I have yet come across.

    jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT
    Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried.
    animalogic , October 25, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT
    "See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."

    This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power.

    Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.

    However, the author probably goes to far:

    "Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony".

    Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which has NO exchange value: POWER.

    Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed, they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as particular industries.

    US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for aggressive competition, up to & including war.

    Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist: Monopoly.

    jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT
    @Malla

    Read Howard Zinn, and discover that the USA always was the same since Columbus began.

    m___ , October 25, 2017 at 9:00 am GMT
    Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other "religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct, relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the "essence" of the dynamics of our times.

    The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles, even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of global human?

    The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration, migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.

    The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites ( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first, not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.

    Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.

    As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking, strategy and engineering.

    This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.

    Hans Vogel , October 25, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT
    Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs, college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself from the contemporary world.

    Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics of European culture: there you will find all you need.

    For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).

    m___ , October 25, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT
    @Malla

    And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.

    "Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.

    jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT

    The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.

    While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.

    I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.

    - Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7, and 9, 1788

    https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/united-states-documents/patrick-henry-foreign-wars-civil-wars-and-indian-wars-three

    Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but despite it.

    Jake , October 25, 2017 at 11:28 am GMT
    It is the nightmare world of Network come to life.
    jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT
    For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political forces were given boosts by both world wars.

    It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed, not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right. Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the State and not as a result of free market operations.

    -Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]

    https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-prospects-liberty

    jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT

    A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in human history), technically, has no ideology.

    Please change that to" contemporary state-sponsored global capitalism

    Malla , October 25, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
    @Wizard of Oz

    It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.

    You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.

    Also check this out

    Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.

    Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research

    Miro23 , October 25, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

    Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.

    This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.

    And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:

    Citizenship – Dictionary.com

    1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.

    2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:

    an award for good citizenship.

    The Consumer – Dictionary.com

    1. a person or thing that consumes.

    2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.

    A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains respect through work and ethical standards etc.

    A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves (and others) by how they spend money and what they own.

    It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.

    jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT

    It was all about connecting the dots really.

    Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.

    Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.

    daniel le mouche , October 25, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT
    @Wizard of Oz

    I can, Wiz.

    Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement, its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal conditions.

    daniel le mouche , October 25, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT
    @jilles dykstra

    I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's talk about now.'

    This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc

    joe webb , October 25, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT
    Say what???

    " capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."

    This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.

    Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism, from a racialist point of view.

    "Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms' are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic, with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism, etc.

    Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.

    Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.

    Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic nature.

    This is another story.

    As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out of bed.

    The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord enters.

    People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature is genetic similarity, etc.

    Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated, even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.

    As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration, "if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was a White we.

    Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.

    Joe Webb

    Wally , Website October 25, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT
    @jacques sheete

    Bingo.

    Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.

    Wally , Website October 25, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT
    @Malla

    "How Big Oil Conquered the World"?

    That's called 'taking the bait.'

    US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.

    IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.

    And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.

    It's Big Government, not Big Oil.

    jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
    @Wally

    Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.

    That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.

    The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed, and it's an old trick which nearly always works.

    Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the politicians of the day.

    SAUSAGE-SELLER

    No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist, that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.

    - Aristophanes, The Knights, 424 BC

    http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/knights.html

    jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT
    @daniel le mouche

    The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.

    Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.

    Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings, thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.

    Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?

    On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.

    The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.

    This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban Bad Land, 1997.

    As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.

    jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
    @Wally

    Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.

    [Oct 25, 2017] Political Disorder Syndrome - Refusal To Reason Is The New Normal

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some thought the apotheosis of political derangement had been reached when celebrity Kathy Griffin posted a video of herself holding the bloody, severed head of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... Donald Trump's election has caused psychological unhingement in much of the population. But the Trump phenomenon only accelerated forces that were plummeting in this direction before the 2016 election. ..."
    "... Social media-a permanent marinade for the human brain-is causing a vast, mysterious transformation of how people process experience, and maybe someday a future B.F. Skinner will explain what it has done to us. ..."
    "... Impossible to miss, though, is how jacked up emotional intensity has become in American politics. The campaign rallies of both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders often sat on the edge of violence. Reporters describe political town hall meetings as full of "angry" voters. Shouting down the opposition in these forums or on campus has been virtually internalized as standard behavior. Refusal to reason is the new normal. And then the unreason is euphemized as free speech. ..."
    "... We negotiate much of daily life now in tense, parallel universes : One is overflowing with individual political and social behavior that is deviant-flights from the norm-at a time when broader norms of political and social behavior are enforced with a vengeance. Today you can get shamed, sued or fired for almost any conceivable offense. ..."
    "... In reaction, millions of people -- including the president -- seem to regard social media as a kind of wildlife refuge , where they can run naked against society's dammed-up personal and political opinions. ..."
    "... Deep state, the MSM, the MIC, etc. are not controlled by the establishment, they ARE the establishment. Political anger and violence are being stoked on purpose to undo the last election. ..."
    "... It's not just that they are unwilling to reason, it's that they completely reject reason as a means to truth. Because there is no truth. Therefore your attempts to reason are just attempts to exert influence over them, to establish power over them...probably as a result of your patriarchical worldview. ..."
    "... We're talking about oil and water. These worldviews cannot coexist. They reject reason. They reject logic. They reject free speech and demand that you only use language they approve of. They reject the individual - only the group matters - and the more "oppressed" the better. They are the exact opposite of everything that we hold dear and cherish, everything you've ever known or loved. They don't believe in good or evil, or the worth of the individual. These are the same people who reduce you to a number and march you into a pit where they bury you alive. They will reduce you to an unperson, and they will eliminate you as soon as they get a chance. ..."
    "... A lot of the debate by the MSM focuses on the careerist power struggle of elites at the top. That is not what brought Trump to power, nor is ideological purity of any kind the reason, although college students at elite universities may be motivated by ideology. ..."
    "... Many people who voted for Trump said they had not bothered to vote since Perot. That was the last time serious economic issues were addressed head-on. There were many cross-over voters in the Rust Belt and elsewhere, voting for Trump because their party, when not focused on one more layer of welfare/taxfare for single moms, focuses on racism, sexism and xenophobia..... ..."
    "... There was no Trump-Russian collusion against Hillary therefore rationally and logically there can be no obstruction of investigation of a Trump-Russian collusion because it never happened. Its like charging someone for arson and there was provably no fire. ..."
    "... Its a big club. An you and me aint in it. The left vs right thing is just a trick. ..."
    "... Borders Are Destroyed to Attack the US Labor Rate (Deserved or Undeserved) - Globalism, CAFTA, NAFTA, Fast-Track by Bill Clinton, deployed to destroy US Labor Rate & US Jobs & US Middle Class ..."
    "... IT IS A REAL MESS, Propaganda is the name of the Problem! ..."
    "... We know that Hillary Clinton engaged in an INFO-War long, long ago. ..."
    "... I think main street has been extremely patient. I think after three decades of being slowly and consistently shit on though, enough is enough, and they are starting to lose it. ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    James T. Hodgkinson, who on Wednesday shot Republican Rep. Steve Scalise and four others, posted this on his Facebook page March 22: "Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co."

    Sitting in the dying light of World War I, the poet T.S. Eliot wrote, "I had not thought death had undone so many." What's our excuse? Displays of political or social excess seem to be everywhere. Whatever once fastened the doors of people's minds to something secure and stable has become unhinged.

    Some thought the apotheosis of political derangement had been reached when celebrity Kathy Griffin posted a video of herself holding the bloody, severed head of Donald Trump.

    But that wasn't the end of it. We may assume that as Ms. Griffin was creating her video, the artists at New York's Public Theater were rehearsing their production of " Julius Caesar, " the one in which Central Park audiences watch Caesar as a blond-haired Donald Trump, who is pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated with plunging knives.

    The news site Axios runs stories regularly about journalists who have been suspended or fired because of their unhinged postings on Twitter . After Donald Trump used a tweet to revive his long-running feud with the mayor of London amid the June 3 killings, CNN personality Reza Aslan tweeted that Mr. Trump was a "piece of s-."

    Some take comfort that these displays did not go unpunished. CNN wrist-slapped Ms. Griffin by dropping her as co-host of its New Year's Eve show with Anderson Cooper. Delta Air Lines , American Express and Bank of America withdrew their sponsorship of "Julius Caesar," though New York City's Democratic Comptroller Scott Stringer said their pullout "sends the wrong message."

    Advertisers must wake up every morning wondering what political meteorite will hit them next. J.P. Morgan Chase pulled its ads this week from NBC News rather than be associated with Megyn Kelly's prime-time interview with Alex Jones to discuss "controversies and conspiracies," such as his notion that the Sandy Hook murders were a hoax. Ms. Kelly justified the interview in part on Twitter because Donald Trump appeared on Mr. Jones's show and "our job is 2 shine a light."

    Donald Trump's election has caused psychological unhingement in much of the population. But the Trump phenomenon only accelerated forces that were plummeting in this direction before the 2016 election.

    Social media-a permanent marinade for the human brain-is causing a vast, mysterious transformation of how people process experience, and maybe someday a future B.F. Skinner will explain what it has done to us.

    Impossible to miss, though, is how jacked up emotional intensity has become in American politics. The campaign rallies of both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders often sat on the edge of violence. Reporters describe political town hall meetings as full of "angry" voters. Shouting down the opposition in these forums or on campus has been virtually internalized as standard behavior. Refusal to reason is the new normal. And then the unreason is euphemized as free speech.

    Explaining away these impulses as a routine turn of the populist political cycle is insufficient. Something more permanent is happening.

    I remain fascinated with the case of the 10 incoming Harvard freshmen who celebrated their achievement by posting a series of remarkably repulsive, violent photographic memes on Facebook. One said abusing children was sexually arousing; another described the hanging of a Mexican child as "pińata time."

    What those no-longer Harvard students had done was create a "private" Facebook messaging board, where they somehow felt free to mock and subvert current social convention. They aren't alone. The website Reddit, which has about 500 million monthly visitors, became known for similar "anonymous" bulletin boards on which men, for example, exchange outrageous sexual postings.

    We negotiate much of daily life now in tense, parallel universes : One is overflowing with individual political and social behavior that is deviant-flights from the norm-at a time when broader norms of political and social behavior are enforced with a vengeance. Today you can get shamed, sued or fired for almost any conceivable offense.

    In reaction, millions of people -- including the president -- seem to regard social media as a kind of wildlife refuge , where they can run naked against society's dammed-up personal and political opinions.

    The possibilities for psychological dislocation are limitless. Kathy Griffin justified her beheaded-Trump stunt by arguing, "I've dealt with older white guys trying to keep me down my whole life. . . . This is a woman thing."

    We know that political anger and violence can become mystical in its attraction, especially at the margin for people like political shooter James Hodgkinson. This is a good moment to dial it back. The Public Theater's management could cancel their staged Trump assassination in Central Park. But they won't. Like so many others with political disorder syndrome, they no longer can.

    sixsigma cygnus... - VWAndy , Jun 15, 2017 8:47 PM

    Deep state, the MSM, the MIC, etc. are not controlled by the establishment, they ARE the establishment. Political anger and violence are being stoked on purpose to undo the last election.

    spastic_colon - sixsigma cygnusatratus , Jun 15, 2017 8:49 PM

    and to also deflect all of the obvious criminal activity in the last admin....someone must be right over the target.

    Killtruck - CRM114 , Jun 15, 2017 10:11 PM

    It's not just that they are unwilling to reason, it's that they completely reject reason as a means to truth. Because there is no truth. Therefore your attempts to reason are just attempts to exert influence over them, to establish power over them...probably as a result of your patriarchical worldview.

    We're talking about oil and water. These worldviews cannot coexist. They reject reason. They reject logic. They reject free speech and demand that you only use language they approve of. They reject the individual - only the group matters - and the more "oppressed" the better. They are the exact opposite of everything that we hold dear and cherish, everything you've ever known or loved. They don't believe in good or evil, or the worth of the individual. These are the same people who reduce you to a number and march you into a pit where they bury you alive. They will reduce you to an unperson, and they will eliminate you as soon as they get a chance.

    Endgame Napoleon - Stuck on Zero , Jun 15, 2017 10:10 PM

    A lot of the debate by the MSM focuses on the careerist power struggle of elites at the top. That is not what brought Trump to power, nor is ideological purity of any kind the reason, although college students at elite universities may be motivated by ideology.

    Many people who voted for Trump said they had not bothered to vote since Perot. That was the last time serious economic issues were addressed head-on. There were many cross-over voters in the Rust Belt and elsewhere, voting for Trump because their party, when not focused on one more layer of welfare/taxfare for single moms, focuses on racism, sexism and xenophobia.....

    ....in a "racist" era with a twice-elected Black president, where many government agencies have 80% Black staff and managers

    .....in a "sexist"' era where more than half of the MDs are women, as are half of the managers, in general, when wealth has never been more concentrated due to assortative mating

    ....in a "xenophobic" era, where even illegal immigrants are treated much better than millions of citizens, leading to $113 billion per year in welfare/taxfare expenditures for the illegal immigrants alone, not counting all of the freebies for 1 million legal immigrants admitted per year, particularly for those who reproduce

    CRM114 - Killtruck , Jun 15, 2017 9:08 PM

    When do you think it was crossed?

    End of the Cold War, I reckon. That's the last point when politicians being vaguely competant mattered.

    nmewn - VWAndy , Jun 15, 2017 8:49 PM

    Full of what?

    There was no Trump-Russian collusion against Hillary therefore rationally and logically there can be no obstruction of investigation of a Trump-Russian collusion because it never happened. Its like charging someone for arson and there was provably no fire.

    VWAndy - nmewn , Jun 15, 2017 8:56 PM

    Its a big club. An you and me aint in it. The left vs right thing is just a trick.

    Kyddyl , Jun 15, 2017 8:44 PM

    As I said in response to another article I've been off on a kick of reading about the American unCivil War. The heated rhetoric led up to violence far before either "side" was ready. It proved to be a messy disaster. Very few thought ahead far enough to even have their own families survive it. Be very careful of what you wish for. John Michael Greer's "Twilight's Last Gleaming" and "Retrotopia" should give us serious pause for thought. Our just in time grocery supply system would fail, fuel delivery from the few states with refineries would crawl and with all those nuclear power plants needing constant baby sitting everybody needs to settle down and really think this mess out. Inter US civil divisions would need careful and peaceful negotiations.

    Forbes , Jun 15, 2017 8:53 PM

    The messaging Henninger identifies was rampant for eight years of Obama ("Get in their faces!" and the Chicago Way--"They bring a knife, you bring a gun.") Social media is/was no different. Remember the Rodeo Clown wearing an Obama mask who was summarily fired. Any critique of Obama was automatically racist. I could go on and on with examples. The Left never policed its own, was constantly on-guard against the Right, with enforcement of political correctness job #1.

    The ankle-biting mainstream media is part and parcel the opposition and the resistence--and the Establishment Republicans at the WSJ are just now noticing?? Someone alert Captain Renault...

    Let it Go , Jun 15, 2017 9:00 PM

    In reality no intelligent plans have been written or are moving through the halls of Congress. It could be argued a polarized America has joined a polarized world in taking the course of least resistance and that is to do nothing. It appears most of the developed countries across the world are in exactly the same boat. With Trump's greatest accomplishment being the rolling-back of the Obama agenda the article below argues this may be as good as it gets.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/06/polarized-america-taking-course-of.html

    TeethVillage88s , Jun 15, 2017 9:05 PM

    But, But, ... that sounds like RINOs, DINOs, NeoCons, Neoliberals, those that think Economics is a Hard Science... Sounds like Propaganda by the Most Powerful Corporations and Family Dynasties...

    "Political Disorder Syndrome - "Refusal To Reason Is The New Normal"

    PDS - won't get traction since TPTB have to approve of this kind of thing!

    http://www.lyricsdepot.com/jimmy-buffett/banana-republics.html

    Borders Are Destroyed to Attack the US Labor Rate (Deserved or Undeserved) - Globalism, CAFTA, NAFTA, Fast-Track by Bill Clinton, deployed to destroy US Labor Rate & US Jobs & US Middle Class = PROOF that Democrats are Treasonous, are working against the Worker (Either Communist Worker or Other worker) - US National Security is destroyed by the cost of MIC, $1 Trillion Annually - US Constitutional Republic is Destroyed, replaced by Globalism Ideology & Propaganda Deep Program to hide this Fact from Middle Class, from Workers, from Job Losers, from Voters, from Students, from Youth who will not see the entry level jobs...

    IT IS A REAL MESS, Propaganda is the name of the Problem! We all know the history of Propaganda. We know that Hillary Clinton engaged in an INFO-War long, long ago. 1971 William Renquist Memo pointed out to Republicans that they must gear up for Foundations to fight Democrats who were much stronger in Political Organizations at this time.

    Makes you think.

    ElTerco , Jun 15, 2017 10:26 PM

    I think main street has been extremely patient. I think after three decades of being slowly and consistently shit on though, enough is enough, and they are starting to lose it.

    [Oct 24, 2017] House Launches Probe Into Comeys Handling Of Clinton Email Investigation

    The neoliberal "the new class" to which Clintons belong like nomenklatura in the USSR are above the law.
    Notable quotes:
    "... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
    "... Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut. ..."
    "... Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world. ..."
    "... Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). ..."
    "... You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. ..."
    "... We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. ..."
    "... Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws. ..."
    "... Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot. ..."
    "... The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. ..."
    "... Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status." ..."
    Oct 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite the existence of a Congressional subpoena, it seems as though James Comey has just had his very own "oh shit" moment.

    After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

    Among other things, Goodlatte and Gowdy said that the FBI must answer for why it chose to provide public updates in the Clinton investigation but not in the Trump investigation and why the FBI decided to " appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton," a power typically left to the DOJ.

    "Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.

    "Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered. These include, but are not limited to:

    ???? #BREAKING : @RepGoodlatte & @TGowdySC to investigate #DOJ decisions made in 2016 to ensure transparency and accountability at the agency. pic.twitter.com/EOm4pnHbTG

    -- House Judiciary ? (@HouseJudiciary) October 24, 2017

    Of course, this comes just one day after Comey revealed his secret Twitter account which led the internet to wildly speculate that he may be running for a political office...which, these days, being under investigation by multiple Congressional committees might just mean he has a good shot.

    Finally, we leave you with one artist's depiction of how the Comey 'investigation' of Hillary's email scandal played out...

    AlaricBalth -> Creepy_Azz_Crackaah , Oct 24, 2017 1:03 PM

    "Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic..."

    Spewed coffee after reading this quote.

    Ghost of PartysOver -> AlaricBalth , Oct 24, 2017 1:10 PM

    Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut.

    nope-1004 -> Ghost of PartysOver , Oct 24, 2017 1:12 PM

    LAMP POST!

    Live stream for all to witness.

    macholatte -> nope-1004 , Oct 24, 2017 1:17 PM

    It's nice publicity to hear that the Congress is "investigating". It's NOT nice to know that the DOJ is doing nothing. Probably 50 top level people at the FBI need to be fired as well as another 50 at DOJ to get the ball rolling toward a Grand Jury. Until then, it's all eyewash and BULLSHIT!

    Thought Processor -> Chupacabra-322 , Oct 24, 2017 2:11 PM

    Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world.

    Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). Though in time all information will surface, as good players leak the info of the bad players into the open. Which of course is why the corrupt players go after the leakers, as it is one key way they can be taken down. Also remember that they need the good players in any organization to be used as cover (as those not in the know can be used to work on legit projects). Once the good players catch on to the ruse and corruption it is, beyond a certain tipping point, all over, as the leaked information goes from drop to flood. There will simply be no way to deny it.

    Ikiru -> Creepy_Azz_Crackaah , Oct 24, 2017 2:02 PM

    You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. If the criminal stench surrounding her gets strong enough, the rats will begin to jump ship. People will stop taking orders and doing her dirty work. She's wounded right now, if there was ever a time to finish her, it would be now. Where the fuck is the big-talking Jeff Sessions? I think they got to him--he even LOOKS scared shitless.

    jimmy c korn -> Richard Chesler , Oct 24, 2017 1:28 PM

    a blind-folded woman with a hand in their pockets.

    chunga -> Max Cynical , Oct 24, 2017 1:00 PM

    It's just not possible to have any respect for these politician people.

    We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. Remember Chaffetz "subpoenas are not suggestions"? Yeah, well they are. Chaffetz turned around and sent a letter about this to "attorney general" jeff sessions and he's done exactly shit about about it. (Look it up, that's a true story)

    Then we've got president maverick outsider simply ignoring Julian Assange and Wikileaks while he squeals daily about fake news. Wikileaks has exposed more fraud than Congress ever has.

    shovelhead -> DirtySanchez , Oct 24, 2017 12:57 PM

    First we need to get a US Attorney. Our last one seems to have gone AWOL.

    DirtySanchez -> shovelhead , Oct 24, 2017 1:05 PM

    Sessions is the Attorney General. Give the man some credit. He recused himself from the Russia/Trump collusion, and this decision may very well save the republic.

    If Sessions was actively involved, half the nation would never accept the findings, no matter the outcome. With Sessions voluntarily sidelined, the truth will eventually expose the criminal conspirators; all the way to the top.

    Wikileaks and Assange have documented proof of criminal behavior from Obama, Lynch, Holder, Hillary, W. Bush, and more. This will be the biggest scandal to hit the world stage. Ever.

    waterwitch -> DirtySanchez , Oct 24, 2017 1:18 PM

    Bigger than the Awan Spy ring in Congress?

    IronForge , Oct 24, 2017 12:36 PM

    About Fracking Time. Toss that Evidence Eraser into Black Sites hot during the Summer and Cold during the Winter Months.

    To Hell In A Ha... , Oct 24, 2017 12:40 PM

    lol Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws.

    E.F. Mutton , Oct 24, 2017 12:37 PM

    Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot.

    ToSoft4Truth , Oct 24, 2017 12:38 PM

    The TV said Comey will be running for president in 2020.

    Akzed -> ToSoft4Truth , Oct 24, 2017 12:39 PM

    Well then it must be true.

    ToSoft4Truth -> Akzed , Oct 24, 2017 12:51 PM

    The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. Holograms?

    E.F. Mutton -> Gerry Fletcher , Oct 24, 2017 12:57 PM

    The Blind Justice Lady is real, she just has a .45 at the back of her head held by Hillary. And don't even ask where Bill's finger is

    mc888 -> BigWillyStyle887 , Oct 24, 2017 1:24 PM

    Congress can't do shit without DOJ and FBI, which are both compromised and corrupt to the core.

    That should have been Sessions' first order of business.

    He can still get it rolling by firing Rosenstein and replacing him with someone that will do the job.They can strike down the Comey immunity deals and arrest people for violating Congressional subpeona.

    They can also assemble a Grand Jury to indict Rosenstein and Mueller for the Russian collusion conspiracy to commit Espionage and Sabotage of our National Security resources. Half of Mueller's staff will then be indicted, along with Clinton, Obama, Lynch, Holder, and Comey.

    Replacement of Rosenstein is the crucial first step.

    Dead Indiana Sky , Oct 24, 2017 12:43 PM

    Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status."

    [Oct 17, 2017] The Victory of Perception Management by Robert Parry

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... But these were largely ad hoc efforts. A more comprehensive "public diplomacy" operation took shape beginning in 1982 when Raymond, a 30-year veteran of CIA clandestine services, was transferred to the NSC. ..."
    "... A slight, soft-spoken New Yorker who reminded some of a character from a John le Carré spy novel, Raymond was an intelligence officer who "easily fades into the woodwork," according to one acquaintance. But Raymond would become the sparkplug for this high-powered propaganda network, according to a draft chapter of the Iran-Contra report. ..."
    "... But things were about to change. In a Jan. 13, 1983, memo, NSC Advisor Clark foresaw the need for non-governmental money to advance this cause. "We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding," Clark wrote. (Just five days later, President Reagan personally welcomed media magnate Rupert Murdoch into the Oval Office for a private meeting, according to records on file at the Reagan library.) ..."
    "... As administration officials reached out to wealthy supporters, lines against domestic propaganda soon were crossed as the operation took aim not only at foreign audiences but at U.S. public opinion, the press and congressional Democrats who opposed funding the Nicaraguan Contras. ..."
    "... At the time, the Contras were earning a gruesome reputation as human rights violators and terrorists. To change this negative perception of the Contras as well as of the U.S.-backed regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, the Reagan administration created a full-blown, clandestine propaganda network. ..."
    "... Rupert Murdoch's media empire is bigger than ever, but his neocon messaging barely stands out as distinctive, given how the neocons also have gained control of the editorial and foreign-reporting sections of the Washington Post, the New York Times and virtually every other major news outlet. For instance, the demonizing of Russian President Putin is now so total that no honest person could look at those articles and see anything approaching objective or evenhanded journalism. Yet, no one loses a job over this lack of professionalism. ..."
    "... Reagan actually has two sides as he was portrayed on SNL, the nice grandfatherly side, and the mafia boss warmonger side. He managed to use the media to display his nice side. ..."
    "... Studies estimate that between 100K and 150K Nam vets have committed suicide since the war. There are many reasons why but I suspect a goodly number did so when they couldn't handle the knowledge of how they had been used. I'm careful about who in my "peers" I enlighten. ..."
    "... It's painful to watch any western MSM. It's all through our sports and entertainment programming to the point of madness. The wreckage caused by our "leaders" across the earth's face, in our name, IS evil. ..."
    "... Studies estimate that between 100K and 150K Nam vets have committed suicide since the war. There are many reasons why but I suspect a goodly number did so when they couldn't handle the knowledge of how they had been used. I'm careful about who in my "peers" I enlighten. ..."
    "... Always follow the money. ..."
    Dec 28, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

    Special Report: In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pioneered "perception management" to get the American people to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome" and accept more U.S. interventionism, but that propaganda structure continues to this day getting the public to buy into endless war, writes Robert Parry.

    To understand how the American people find themselves trapped in today's Orwellian dystopia of endless warfare against an ever-shifting collection of "evil" enemies, you have to think back to the Vietnam War and the shock to the ruling elite caused by an unprecedented popular uprising against that war.

    While on the surface Official Washington pretended that the mass protests didn't change policy, a panicky reality existed behind the scenes, a recognition that a major investment in domestic propaganda would be needed to ensure that future imperial adventures would have the public's eager support or at least its confused acquiescence.

    President Ronald Reagan meeting with media magnate Rupert Murdoch in the Oval Office on Jan. 18, 1983, with Charles Wick, director of the U.S. Information Agency, in the background. (Photo credit: Reagan presidential library)

    This commitment to what the insiders called "perception management" began in earnest with the Reagan administration in the 1980s but it would come to be the accepted practice of all subsequent administrations, including the present one of President Barack Obama.

    In that sense, propaganda in pursuit of foreign policy goals would trump the democratic ideal of an informed electorate. The point would be not to honestly inform the American people about events around the world but to manage their perceptions by ramping up fear in some cases and defusing outrage in others depending on the U.S. government's needs.

    Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Yet, many of these same U.S. foreign policy operatives outraged over Russia's limited intervention to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are demanding that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian" intervention there.

    In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev that was installed with U.S. support, the Russians are the villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the vast majority of the casualties have been inflicted by the Kiev regime from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi militias to do the street fighting.

    In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected president last February. It's all about white hats for the current Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for Putin.

    But an entirely different set of standards has applied to Syria where a U.S.-backed rebellion, which included violent Sunni jihadists from the start, wore the white hats and the relatively secular Syrian government, which has responded with excessive violence of its own, wears the black hats. But a problem to that neat dichotomy arose when one of the major Sunni rebel forces, the Islamic State, started seizing Iraqi territory and beheading Westerners.

    Faced with those grisly scenes, President Obama authorized bombing the Islamic State forces in both Iraq and Syria, but neocons and other U.S. hardliners have been hectoring Obama to go after their preferred target, Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, despite the risk that destroying the Syrian military could open the gates of Damascus to the Islamic State or al-Qaeda's Nusra Front.

    Lost on the Dark Side

    You might think that the American public would begin to rebel against these messy entangling alliances with the 1984 -like demonizing of one new "enemy" after another. Not only have these endless wars drained trillions of dollars from the U.S. taxpayers, they have led to the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and to the tarnishing of America's image from the attendant evils of war, including a lengthy detour into the "dark side" of torture, assassinations and "collateral" killings of children and other innocents.

    But that is where the history of "perception management" comes in, the need to keep the American people compliant and confused. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration was determined to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," the revulsion that many Americans felt for warfare after all those years in the blood-soaked jungles of Vietnam and all the lies that clumsily justified the war.

    So, the challenge for the U.S. government became: how to present the actions of "enemies" always in the darkest light while bathing the behavior of the U.S. "side" in a rosy glow. You also had to stage this propaganda theater in an ostensibly "free country" with a supposedly "independent press."

    From documents declassified or leaked over the past several decades, including an unpublished draft chapter of the congressional Iran-Contra investigation, we now know a great deal about how this remarkable project was undertaken and who the key players were.

    Perhaps not surprisingly much of the initiative came from the Central Intelligence Agency, which housed the expertise for manipulating target populations through propaganda and disinformation. The only difference this time would be that the American people would be the target population.

    For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the National Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy" strategy.

    Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.

    Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan remains an expert in presenting foreign policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February amid a very effective U.S. propaganda strategy.

    During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative.

    A Propaganda Bureaucracy

    Declassified documents now reveal how extensive Reagan's propaganda project became with inter-agency task forces assigned to develop "themes" that would push American "hot buttons." Scores of documents came out during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987 and hundreds more are now available at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California.

    What the documents reveal is that at the start of the Reagan administration, CIA Director Casey faced a daunting challenge in trying to rally public opinion behind aggressive U.S. interventions, especially in Central America. Bitter memories of the Vietnam War were still fresh and many Americans were horrified at the brutality of right-wing regimes in Guatemala and El Salvador, where Salvadoran soldiers raped and murdered four American churchwomen in December 1980.

    The new leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua also was not viewed with much alarm. After all, Nicaragua was an impoverished country of only about three million people who had just cast off the brutal dictatorship of Anastasio Somoza.

    So, Reagan's initial strategy of bolstering the Salvadoran and Guatemalan armies required defusing the negative publicity about them and somehow rallying the American people into supporting a covert CIA intervention inside Nicaragua via a counterrevolutionary force known as the Contras led by Somoza's ex-National Guard officers.

    Reagan's task was made tougher by the fact that the Cold War's anti-communist arguments had so recently been discredited in Vietnam. As deputy assistant secretary to the Air Force, J. Michael Kelly, put it, "the most critical special operations mission we have is to persuade the American people that the communists are out to get us."

    At the same time, the White House worked to weed out American reporters who uncovered facts that undercut the desired public images. As part of that effort, the administration attacked New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing the Salvadoran regime's massacre of about 800 men, women and children in the village of El Mozote in northeast El Salvador in December 1981. Accuracy in Media and conservative news organizations, such as The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, joined in pummeling Bonner, who was soon ousted from his job.

    But these were largely ad hoc efforts. A more comprehensive "public diplomacy" operation took shape beginning in 1982 when Raymond, a 30-year veteran of CIA clandestine services, was transferred to the NSC.

    A slight, soft-spoken New Yorker who reminded some of a character from a John le Carré spy novel, Raymond was an intelligence officer who "easily fades into the woodwork," according to one acquaintance. But Raymond would become the sparkplug for this high-powered propaganda network, according to a draft chapter of the Iran-Contra report.

    Though the draft chapter didn't use Raymond's name in its opening pages, apparently because some of the information came from classified depositions, Raymond's name was used later in the chapter and the earlier citations matched Raymond's known role. According to the draft report, the CIA officer who was recruited for the NSC job had served as Director of the Covert Action Staff at the CIA from 1978 to 1982 and was a "specialist in propaganda and disinformation."

    "The CIA official [Raymond] discussed the transfer with [CIA Director] Casey and NSC Advisor William Clark that he be assigned to the NSC as [Donald] Gregg's successor [as coordinator of intelligence operations in June 1982] and received approval for his involvement in setting up the public diplomacy program along with his intelligence responsibilities," the chapter said.

    "In the early part of 1983, documents obtained by the Select [Iran-Contra] Committees indicate that the Director of the Intelligence Staff of the NSC [Raymond] successfully recommended the establishment of an inter-governmental network to promote and manage a public diplomacy plan designed to create support for Reagan Administration policies at home and abroad."

    During his Iran-Contra deposition, Raymond explained the need for this propaganda structure, saying: "We were not configured effectively to deal with the war of ideas."

    One reason for this shortcoming was that federal law forbade taxpayers' money from being spent on domestic propaganda or grassroots lobbying to pressure congressional representatives. Of course, every president and his team had vast resources to make their case in public, but by tradition and law, they were restricted to speeches, testimony and one-on-one persuasion of lawmakers.

    But things were about to change. In a Jan. 13, 1983, memo, NSC Advisor Clark foresaw the need for non-governmental money to advance this cause. "We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding," Clark wrote. (Just five days later, President Reagan personally welcomed media magnate Rupert Murdoch into the Oval Office for a private meeting, according to records on file at the Reagan library.)

    As administration officials reached out to wealthy supporters, lines against domestic propaganda soon were crossed as the operation took aim not only at foreign audiences but at U.S. public opinion, the press and congressional Democrats who opposed funding the Nicaraguan Contras.

    At the time, the Contras were earning a gruesome reputation as human rights violators and terrorists. To change this negative perception of the Contras as well as of the U.S.-backed regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, the Reagan administration created a full-blown, clandestine propaganda network.

    In January 1983, President Reagan took the first formal step to create this unprecedented peacetime propaganda bureaucracy by signing National Security Decision Directive 77, entitled "Management of Public Diplomacy Relative to National Security." Reagan deemed it "necessary to strengthen the organization, planning and coordination of the various aspects of public diplomacy of the United States Government."

    Reagan ordered the creation of a special planning group within the National Security Council to direct these "public diplomacy" campaigns. The planning group would be headed by the CIA's Walter Raymond Jr. and one of its principal arms would be a new Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America, housed at the State Department but under the control of the NSC.

    CIA Taint

    Worried about the legal prohibition barring the CIA from engaging in domestic propaganda, Raymond formally resigned from the CIA in April 1983, so, he said, "there would be no question whatsoever of any contamination of this." But Raymond continued to act toward the U.S. public much like a CIA officer would in directing a propaganda operation in a hostile foreign country.

    Raymond fretted, too, about the legality of Casey's ongoing involvement. Raymond confided in one memo that it was important "to get [Casey] out of the loop," but Casey never backed off and Raymond continued to send progress reports to his old boss well into 1986. It was "the kind of thing which [Casey] had a broad catholic interest in," Raymond shrugged during his Iran-Contra deposition. He then offered the excuse that Casey undertook this apparently illegal interference in domestic politics "not so much in his CIA hat, but in his adviser to the president hat."

    As a result of Reagan's decision directive, "an elaborate system of inter-agency committees was eventually formed and charged with the task of working closely with private groups and individuals involved in fundraising, lobbying campaigns and propagandistic activities aimed at influencing public opinion and governmental action," the draft Iran-Contra chapter said. "This effort resulted in the creation of the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean in the Department of State (S/LPD), headed by Otto Reich," a right-wing Cuban exile from Miami.

    Though Secretary of State George Shultz wanted the office under his control, President Reagan insisted that Reich "report directly to the NSC," where Raymond oversaw the operations as a special assistant to the President and the NSC's director of international communications, the chapter said.

    "Reich relied heavily on Raymond to secure personnel transfers from other government agencies to beef up the limited resources made available to S/LPD by the Department of State," the chapter said. "Personnel made available to the new office included intelligence specialists from the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army. On one occasion, five intelligence experts from the Army's 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were assigned to work with Reich's fast-growing operation."

    A "public diplomacy strategy paper," dated May 5, 1983, summed up the administration's problem. "As far as our Central American policy is concerned, the press perceives that: the USG [U.S. government] is placing too much emphasis on a military solution, as well as being allied with inept, right-wing governments and groups. The focus on Nicaragua [is] on the alleged U.S.-backed 'covert' war against the Sandinistas. Moreover, the opposition is widely perceived as being led by former Somozistas."

    The administration's difficulty with most of these press perceptions was that they were correct. But the strategy paper recommended ways to influence various groups of Americans to "correct" the impressions anyway, removing what another planning document called "perceptional obstacles."

    "Themes will obviously have to be tailored to the target audience," the strategy paper said.

    Casey's Hand

    As the Reagan administration struggled to manage public perceptions, CIA Director Casey kept his personal hand in the effort. On one muggy day in August 1983, Casey convened a meeting of Reagan administration officials and five leading ad executives at the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House to come up with ideas for selling Reagan's Central American policies to the American people.

    Earlier that day, a national security aide had warmed the P.R. men to their task with dire predictions that leftist governments would send waves of refugees into the United States and cynically flood America with drugs. The P.R. executives jotted down some thoughts over lunch and then pitched their ideas to the CIA director in the afternoon as he sat hunched behind a desk taking notes.

    "Casey was kind of spearheading a recommendation" for better public relations for Reagan's Central America policies, recalled William I. Greener Jr., one of the ad men. Two top proposals arising from the meeting were for a high-powered communications operation inside the White House and private money for an outreach program to build support for U.S. intervention.

    The results from the discussions were summed up in an Aug. 9, 1983, memo written by Raymond who described Casey's participation in the meeting to brainstorm how "to sell a 'new product' Central America by generating interest across-the-spectrum."

    In the memo to then-U.S. Information Agency director Charles Wick, Raymond also noted that "via Murdock [sic] may be able to draw down added funds" to support pro-Reagan initiatives. Raymond's reference to Rupert Murdoch possibly drawing down "added funds" suggests that the right-wing media mogul had been recruited to be part of the covert propaganda operation. During this period, Wick arranged at least two face-to-face meetings between Murdoch and Reagan.

    In line with the clandestine nature of the operation, Raymond also suggested routing the "funding via Freedom House or some other structure that has credibility in the political center." (Freedom House would later emerge as a principal beneficiary of funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which was also created under the umbrella of Raymond's operation.)

    As the Reagan administration pushed the envelope on domestic propaganda, Raymond continued to worry about Casey's involvement. In an Aug. 29, 1983, memo, Raymond recounted a call from Casey pushing his P.R. ideas. Alarmed at a CIA director participating so brazenly in domestic propaganda, Raymond wrote that "I philosophized a bit with Bill Casey (in an effort to get him out of the loop)" but with little success.

    Meanwhile, Reich's Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America (S/LPD) proved extremely effective in selecting "hot buttons" that would anger Americans about the Sandinistas. He also browbeat news correspondents who produced stories that conflicted with the administration's "themes." Reich's basic M.O. was to dispatch his propaganda teams to lobby news executives to remove or punish out-of-step reporters with a disturbing degree of success. Reich once bragged that his office "did not give the critics of the policy any quarter in the debate."

    Another part of the office's job was to plant "white propaganda" in the news media through op-eds secretly financed by the government. In one memo, Jonathan Miller, a senior public diplomacy official, informed White House aide Patrick Buchanan about success placing an anti-Sandinista piece in The Wall Street Journal's friendly pages. "Officially, this office had no role in its preparation," Miller wrote.

    Other times, the administration put out "black propaganda," outright falsehoods. In 1983, one such theme was designed to anger American Jews by portraying the Sandinistas as anti-Semitic because much of Nicaragua's small Jewish community fled after the revolution in 1979.

    However, the U.S. embassy in Managua investigated the charges and "found no verifiable ground on which to accuse the GRN [the Sandinista government] of anti-Semitism," according to a July 28, 1983, cable. But the administration kept the cable secret and pushed the "hot button" anyway.

    Black Hats/White Hats

    Repeatedly, Raymond lectured his subordinates on the chief goal of the operation: "in the specific case of Nica[ragua], concentrate on gluing black hats on the Sandinistas and white hats on UNO [the Contras' United Nicaraguan Opposition]." So Reagan's speechwriters dutifully penned descriptions of Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a "totalitarian dungeon" and the Contras as the "moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers."

    As one NSC official told me, the campaign was modeled after CIA covert operations abroad where a political goal is more important than the truth. "They were trying to manipulate [U.S.] public opinion using the tools of Walt Raymond's trade craft which he learned from his career in the CIA covert operation shop," the official admitted.

    Another administration official gave a similar description to The Miami Herald's Alfonso Chardy. "If you look at it as a whole, the Office of Public Diplomacy was carrying out a huge psychological operation, the kind the military conduct to influence the population in denied or enemy territory," that official explained. [For more details, see Parry's Lost History .]

    Another important figure in the pro-Contra propaganda was NSC staffer Oliver North, who spent a great deal of his time on the Nicaraguan public diplomacy operation even though he is better known for arranging secret arms shipments to the Contras and to Iran's radical Islamic government, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal.

    The draft Iran-Contra chapter depicted a Byzantine network of contract and private operatives who handled details of the domestic propaganda while concealing the hand of the White House and the CIA "Richard R. Miller, former head of public affairs at AID, and Francis D. Gomez, former public affairs specialist at the State Department and USIA, were hired by S/LPD through sole-source, no-bid contracts to carry out a variety of activities on behalf of the Reagan administration policies in Central America," the chapter said.

    "Supported by the State Department and White House, Miller and Gomez became the outside managers of [North operative] Spitz Channel's fundraising and lobbying activities. They also served as the managers of Central American political figures, defectors, Nicaraguan opposition leaders and Sandinista atrocity victims who were made available to the press, the Congress and private groups, to tell the story of the Contra cause."

    Miller and Gomez facilitated transfers of money to Swiss and offshore banks at North's direction, as they "became the key link between the State Department and the Reagan White House with the private groups and individuals engaged in a myriad of endeavors aimed at influencing the Congress, the media and public opinion," the chapter said.

    The Iran-Contra draft chapter also cited a March 10, 1985, memo from North describing his assistance to CIA Director Casey in timing disclosures of pro-Contra news "aimed at securing Congressional approval for renewed support to the Nicaraguan Resistance Forces."

    The chapter added: "Casey's involvement in the public diplomacy effort apparently continued throughout the period under investigation by the Committees," including a 1985 role in pressuring Congress to renew Contra aid and a 1986 hand in further shielding the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America from the oversight of Secretary Shultz.

    A Raymond-authored memo to Casey in August 1986 described the shift of the S/LPD office where Robert Kagan had replaced Reich to the control of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, which was headed by Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams, who had tapped Kagan for the public diplomacy job.

    Even after the Iran-Contra scandal unraveled in 1986-87 and Casey died of brain cancer on May 6, 1987, the Republicans fought to keep secret the remarkable story of the public diplomacy apparatus. As part of a deal to get three moderate Republican senators to join Democrats in signing the Iran-Contra majority report, Democratic leaders agreed to drop the draft chapter detailing the CIA's domestic propaganda role (although a few references were included in the executive summary). But other Republicans, including Rep. Dick Cheney, still issued a minority report defending broad presidential powers in foreign affairs.

    Thus, the American people were spared the chapter's troubling conclusion: that a secret propaganda apparatus had existed, run by "one of the CIA's most senior specialists, sent to the NSC by Bill Casey, to create and coordinate an inter-agency public-diplomacy mechanism [which] did what a covert CIA operation in a foreign country might do. [It] attempted to manipulate the media, the Congress and public opinion to support the Reagan administration's policies."

    Kicking the Vietnam Syndrome

    The ultimate success of Reagan's propaganda strategy was affirmed during the tenure of his successor, George H.W. Bush, when Bush ordered a 100-hour ground war on Feb. 23, 1991, to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait, which had been invaded the previous August.

    Though Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had long been signaling a readiness to withdraw and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev had negotiated a withdrawal arrangement that even had the blessings of top U.S. commanders in the field President Bush insisted on pressing ahead with the ground attack.

    Bush's chief reason was that he and his Defense Secretary Dick Cheney saw the assault against Iraq's already decimated forces as an easy victory, one that would demonstrate America's new military capacity for high-tech warfare and would cap the process begun a decade earlier to erase the Vietnam Syndrome from the minds of average Americans.

    Those strategic aspects of Bush's grand plan for a "new world order" began to emerge after the U.S.-led coalition started pummeling Iraq with air strikes in mid-January 1991. The bombings inflicted severe damage on Iraq's military and civilian infrastructure and slaughtered a large number of non-combatants, including the incineration of some 400 women and children in a Baghdad bomb shelter on Feb. 13. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's " Recalling the Slaughter of Innocents ."]

    The air war's damage was so severe that some world leaders looked for a way to end the carnage and arrange Iraq's departure from Kuwait. Even senior U.S. military field commanders, such as Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, looked favorably on proposals for sparing lives.

    But Bush was fixated on a ground war. Though secret from the American people at that time, Bush had long determined that a peaceful Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait would not be allowed. Indeed, Bush was privately fearful that the Iraqis might capitulate before the United States could attack.

    At the time, conservative columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak were among the few outsiders who described Bush's obsession with exorcising the Vietnam Syndrome. On Feb. 25, 1991, they wrote that the Gorbachev initiative brokering Iraq's surrender of Kuwait "stirred fears" among Bush's advisers that the Vietnam Syndrome might survive the Gulf War.

    "There was considerable relief, therefore, when the President made clear he was having nothing to do with the deal that would enable Saddam Hussein to bring his troops out of Kuwait with flags flying," Evans and Novak wrote. "Fear of a peace deal at the Bush White House had less to do with oil, Israel or Iraqi expansionism than with the bitter legacy of a lost war. 'This is the chance to get rid of the Vietnam Syndrome,' one senior aide told us."

    In the 1999 book, Shadow , author Bob Woodward confirmed that Bush was adamant about fighting a war, even as the White House pretended it would be satisfied with an unconditional Iraqi withdrawal. "We have to have a war," Bush told his inner circle of Secretary of State James Baker, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and Gen. Colin Powell, according to Woodward.

    "Scowcroft was aware that this understanding could never be stated publicly or be permitted to leak out. An American president who declared the necessity of war would probably be thrown out of office. Americans were peacemakers, not warmongers," Woodward wrote.

    The Ground War

    However, the "fear of a peace deal" resurfaced in the wake of the U.S.-led bombing campaign. Soviet diplomats met with Iraqi leaders who let it be known that they were prepared to withdraw their troops from Kuwait unconditionally.

    Learning of Gorbachev's proposed settlement, Schwarzkopf also saw little reason for U.S. soldiers to die if the Iraqis were prepared to withdraw and leave their heavy weapons behind. There was also the prospect of chemical warfare that the Iraqis might use against advancing American troops. Schwarzkopf saw the possibility of heavy U.S. casualties.

    But Gorbachev's plan was running into trouble with President Bush and his political subordinates who wanted a ground war to crown the U.S. victory. Schwarzkopf reached out to Gen. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to make the case for peace with the President.

    On Feb. 21, 1991, the two generals hammered out a cease-fire proposal for presentation to the NSC. The peace deal would give Iraqi forces one week to march out of Kuwait while leaving their armor and heavy equipment behind. Schwarzkopf thought he had Powell's commitment to pitch the plan at the White House.

    But Powell found himself caught in the middle. He wanted to please Bush while still representing the concerns of the field commanders. When Powell arrived at the White House late on the evening of Feb. 21, he found Bush angry about the Soviet peace initiative. Still, according to Woodward's Shadow , Powell reiterated that he and Schwarzkopf "would rather see the Iraqis walk out than be driven out."

    In My American Journey , Powell expressed sympathy for Bush's predicament. "The President's problem was how to say no to Gorbachev without appearing to throw away a chance for peace," Powell wrote. "I could hear the President's growing distress in his voice. 'I don't want to take this deal,' he said. 'But I don't want to stiff Gorbachev, not after he's come this far with us. We've got to find a way out'."

    Powell sought Bush's attention. "I raised a finger," Powell wrote. "The President turned to me. 'Got something, Colin?'," Bush asked. But Powell did not outline Schwarzkopf's one-week cease-fire plan. Instead, Powell offered a different idea intended to make the ground offensive inevitable.

    "We don't stiff Gorbachev," Powell explained. "Let's put a deadline on Gorby's proposal. We say, great idea, as long as they're completely on their way out by, say, noon Saturday," Feb. 23, less than two days away.

    Powell understood that the two-day deadline would not give the Iraqis enough time to act, especially with their command-and-control systems severely damaged by the air war. The plan was a public-relations strategy to guarantee that the White House got its ground war. "If, as I suspect, they don't move, then the flogging begins," Powell told a gratified president.

    The next day, at 10:30 a.m., a Friday, Bush announced his ultimatum. There would be a Saturday noon deadline for the Iraqi withdrawal, as Powell had recommended. Schwarzkopf and his field commanders in Saudi Arabia watched Bush on television and immediately grasped its meaning.

    "We all knew by then which it would be," Schwarzkopf wrote. "We were marching toward a Sunday morning attack."

    When the Iraqis predictably missed the deadline, American and allied forces launched the ground offensive at 0400 on Feb. 24, Persian Gulf time.

    Though Iraqi forces were soon in full retreat, the allies pursued and slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers in the 100-hour war. U.S. casualties were light, 147 killed in combat and another 236 killed in accidents or from other causes. "Small losses as military statistics go," wrote Powell, "but a tragedy for each family."

    On Feb. 28, the day the war ended, Bush celebrated the victory. "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all," the President exulted, speaking to a group at the White House. [For more details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege .]

    So as not to put a damper on the post-war happy feelings, the U.S. news media decided not to show many of the grisliest photos, such as charred Iraqi soldiers ghoulishly still seated in their burned-out trucks where they had been incinerated while trying to flee. By that point, U.S. journalists knew it wasn't smart for their careers to present a reality that didn't make the war look good.

    Enduring Legacy

    Though Reagan's creation of a domestic propaganda bureaucracy began more than three decades ago and Bush's vanquishing of the Vietnam Syndrome was more than two decades ago the legacy of those actions continue to reverberate today in how the perceptions of the American people are now routinely managed. That was true during last decade's Iraq War and this decade's conflicts in Libya, Syria and Ukraine as well as the economic sanctions against Iran and Russia.

    Indeed, while the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year.

    Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "]

    Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force.

    A New York Times article about Kagan's influence over Obama reported that Kagan's wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, apparently had a hand in crafting the attack on her ostensible boss, President Obama.

    According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife.

    Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on Kagan's attack on President Obama, she indicated that she holds similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

    Misguided Media

    In the three decades since Reagan's propaganda machine was launched, the American press corps also has fallen more and more into line with an aggressive U.S. government's foreign policy strategies. Those of us in the mainstream media who resisted the propaganda pressures mostly saw our careers suffer while those who played along moved steadily up the ranks into positions of more money and more status.

    Even after the Iraq War debacle when nearly the entire mainstream media went with the pro-invasion flow, there was almost no accountability for that historic journalistic failure. Indeed, the neocon influence at major newspapers, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, only has solidified since.

    Today's coverage of the Syrian civil war or the Ukraine crisis is so firmly in line with the State Department's propaganda "themes" that it would put smiles on the faces of William Casey and Walter Raymond if they were around today to see how seamlessly the "perception management" now works. There's no need any more to send out "public diplomacy" teams to bully editors and news executives. Everyone is already onboard.

    Rupert Murdoch's media empire is bigger than ever, but his neocon messaging barely stands out as distinctive, given how the neocons also have gained control of the editorial and foreign-reporting sections of the Washington Post, the New York Times and virtually every other major news outlet. For instance, the demonizing of Russian President Putin is now so total that no honest person could look at those articles and see anything approaching objective or evenhanded journalism. Yet, no one loses a job over this lack of professionalism.

    The Reagan administration's dreams of harnessing private foundations and non-governmental organizations have also come true. The Orwellian circle has been completed with many American "anti-war" groups advocating for "humanitarian" wars in Syria and other countries targeted by U.S. propaganda. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Selling 'Peace Groups' on US-Led Wars. "]

    Much as Reagan's "public diplomacy" apparatus once sent around "defectors" to lambaste Nicaragua's Sandinistas by citing hyped-up human rights violations now the work is done by NGOs with barely perceptible threads back to the U.S. government. Just as Freedom House had "credibility" in the 1980s because of its earlier reputation as a human rights group, now other groups carrying the "human rights" tag, such as Human Rights Watch, are in the forefront of urging U.S. military interventions based on murky or propagandistic claims. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case. "]

    At this advanced stage of America's quiet surrender to "perception management," it is even hard to envision how one could retrace the many steps that would lead back to the concept of a democratic Republic based on an informed electorate. Many on the American Right remain entranced by the old propaganda theme about the "liberal media" and still embrace Reagan as their beloved icon. Meanwhile, many liberals can't break away from their own wistful trust in the New York Times and their empty hope that the media really is "liberal."

    To confront the hard truth is not easy. Indeed, in this case, it can cause despair because there are so few voices to trust and they are easily drowned out by floods of disinformation that can come from any angle right, left or center. Yet, for the American democratic Republic to reset its goal toward an informed electorate, there is no option other than to build institutions that are determinedly committed to the truth.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative . For details on this offer, click here .

    LIANE CASTEN , December 28, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    Terrific analysis. Am working on my own book on Vietnam (under contract.) Would love to use this piece liberally–of course with serious attribution. Do I have your permission?. Liane

    W. R. Knight , December 28, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Bear in mind that during WWII, Reagan was nothing more than an itinerant movie actor who played war heros but never participated in the war itself. The movies he played in weren't much more than unabashed propaganda.

    It is obscene that we allow the most vociferous warmongers to avoid any personal risk in the wars they promote; and it is depressing to see the public persuaded by the propaganda to sacrifice their money and children for the benefit of the warmongers.

    Man on the street , December 29, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Reagan actually has two sides as he was portrayed on SNL, the nice grandfatherly side, and the mafia boss warmonger side. He managed to use the media to display his nice side.

    Carroll Price , December 31, 2014 at 11:49 am

    It takes both. All really successful presidents have a nice grandfatherly side and a mafia boss side that's displayed to the public as the need arises. Why? Because the American people admire the mafia war monger trait as much, if not more, than the grandfatherly trait. FDR and Reagan were both successful presidents because they had great skill in displaying whichever side fitted occasion, while Jimmy Carter, who was not blessed with a mafia/war monger side was a complete failure.

    Joe Tedesky , December 28, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    When ever this subject comes up, of how the right wing in American politics controls the narrative, I think of the 'Powell Memo'. In 1971 Lewis Powell wrote a secretive memo descripting how the conservatives must take hold of the American media. Powell would become a Supreme Court justice. If you Google his 'Powell Memo' you will read how Justice Powell laid out a very specific plan on how to do this. Powell wrote this before becoming a sitting Supreme Court Justice. His instructions were so good that many believe this document he wrote, was his stairway to heaven.

    I cannot help but reflect on how the Warren Report was a great way for the Dark State to see how well they could pull the wool over America's eyes. Even though many did not buy the official one gunman claim, what else was there to counter this official report. So, it's business as usual, and for the average US citizen there isn't much else left to do.

    I value this site. Although, there are way to many Americans not getting the news this site has to offer. Instead our society strolls along catching the sound bites, and listening to agenda driven pundits to become the most ill informed populace in human history.

    Everythings Jake , December 28, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    Another stellar moment of "integrity" in Colin Powell's long and ignominious career.

    JWalters , December 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    " given how the neocons also have gained control of the editorial and foreign-reporting sections of the Washington Post, the New York Times and virtually every other major news outlet."

    And how do the neocons, working from niches out of the limelight, have the power to do all this? In a political system dominated by money, from where comes their money? Who coordinates their game plan? Who has an interest in promoting needless wars?
    http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

    Mark , December 29, 2014 at 8:35 am

    A tour de force outstanding work; essential reading, imo. It draws together in detail the mind-management of aggressive imperial adventures from Vietnam, through Central America and Iraq up to Ukraine and Syria today. Thank you Robert Parry.

    Perhaps, as a further signal of the 'same ole same ole', you might even have thrown in somewhere the epithet 'jihadi contras' to describe extremist militias used (recruited, funded, trained, armed and directed) by the US (and allies) in the Syrian nightmare (and Libyan); where the secular and tolerant Assad government is – painfully for perception managers – still supported by the vast majority of Syrians, however topsy-turvy the mainextreme narrative is.

    Thomas Seifert , December 29, 2014 at 9:12 am

    A question from Germany: We observe a very similar process over here – the mainstream media closest following (and inciting!) the official NATO-propaganda in the case of Ukraine. This happens even stubbornly against the bitter protests from greater parts of their own readers.

    But: HOW does this happen? What are precisely the mechanisms to unite the media and the journalists behind a special doctrine? On other themes there is still a pluralism of opinions – but in the case of "national interests"/foreign policy there is a kind of frightening standardization. Why this difference?

    And why this against an obvious resistance from large parts of their readers and from experts (e.g. the last three German chancellors – Schmidt, Kohl and Schroeder – have admonished the NATO for better considering the Russian security interests). I don't want to believe in simple conspiracy theories

    onno , December 29, 2014 at 9:23 am

    Another great article by Consortiumnews proving the manipulation of people by the Western Media. It's amazing and scary to realize that people's minds are influenced by government propaganda. It reminds me of the German occupation during WW II and the lies broadcasted by US financed Radio Free Europe during the Cold War and apparently still happening in Azerbaijan.

    This is psychological warfare at its best and used at the hands of the White House and Washington's Congress. What a shame for a so-called democratic nation, when are the American people waking up?

    John , December 29, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    Excellent piece indeed. The collusion of mass media and officials installed by the same economic powers completes the totalitarian mechanism which has displaced democracy.

    Suggest clarifying use of the name Raymond, at first apparently Raymond Bonner also called Bonner, then a (different?) Raymond with the CIA referred to only by surname(?) as Raymond, then a Walter Raymond jr.

    Studies estimate that between 100K and 150K Nam vets have committed suicide since the war. There are many reasons why but I suspect a goodly number did so when they couldn't handle the knowledge of how they had been used. I'm careful about who in my "peers" I enlighten.

    Paul , December 29, 2014 at 3:39 pm

    The positive side of democracy in America is exemplified precisely by journalism such as this. How sad that it is almost completely overshadowed by the cynical imperial 'democracy' that Parry's essay describes.

    Your description of how the first Iraq War was pursued despite easily available options to avoid the carnage are hair-raising and infuriating. Almost as infuriating as the internal propaganda efforts of the U.S. government. I hope this essay is widely read.

    To me, the positive side of democracy in America is exemplified precisely by journalism such as this. How sad that it is almost completely overshadowed by the cynical imperial 'democracy' that Parry's essay describes.

    Barbc , December 29, 2014 at 7:32 pm

    This past year I have learned from a number of Vietnam veterans that Reagan is not as well liked as has had been implied.
    A most of the dislike is how he did not follow throw with bringing home the POWs left behind in Vietnam.

    Steve Pahs , December 29, 2014 at 10:47 pm

    Mr. Parry,

    I follow your writing and have passed it along at times to the misinformed in my life. I appreciate such as your MH17 work early on when Putin and Russia were immediately blamed.

    I am a Nam grunt vet from 66′-67′ who is the not so proud recipient of the Purple Heart. My physical wounds affect me to this day as I approach the age of 68. My mental wounds are not from my combat experience so much as they are from the eventual feeling of being used and betrayed. Adversity does not build character, it reveals it. I'm good with mine. The mental wounds evolved over time as I educated myself about how such an awful thing as that war could happen and engulf me in it at 19.

    Three months in a military hospital makes one think about what had just transpired. It was the start of a journey that will continue till my last breath. I've crossed that threshold where most of my family and friends are looking through a keyhole offered up by our "leaders" while I am in the room dealing with the evil. Even those who understand what I present will sometimes tell me that "you are right, but it's too late in my life to accept it". That was said by a former Marine pilot.

    It's painful to watch any western MSM. It's all through our sports and entertainment programming to the point of madness. The wreckage caused by our "leaders" across the earth's face, in our name, IS evil. I stopped taking the local paper a couple of years ago after they no longer would print my letters and columns. Twenty years ago it all made me quite angry. It's sadness I feel now for those who refuse to "see". Many vets don't know the source of their anger and the VA gladly numbs them with drugs. Not I.

    Studies estimate that between 100K and 150K Nam vets have committed suicide since the war. There are many reasons why but I suspect a goodly number did so when they couldn't handle the knowledge of how they had been used. I'm careful about who in my "peers" I enlighten.

    Mark Twain (SLC) said some profound things. One of my favorites is "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled". Always follow the money.

    Thanks for what you do. It does make a difference.
    Steve Pahs

    MarkinPNW , December 30, 2014 at 1:43 am

    This "Perception Management" is nothing knew. The argument has been made persuasively that the attack on Pearl Harbor actually resulted from a deliberate and successful campaign by FDR to change or "manage" the mass opinions or "Perceptions" of the US electorate from strongly pro-peace and anti-war (what could be called a "Great War syndrome" from the stupid and useless devastation of WW1) to all out pro-war for US involvement in WW2, by provoking the Japanese and refusing all peace negotiations with the Japanese who desperately were trying to avoid war.

    In reference to "Orwellian Dystopia", Orwell's novels "Animal Farm" and "1984" were based in large part on Orwell's experience in the Spanish Civil War and WW2, respectively.

    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg , December 30, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Until the U.S. gets its butt seriously whipped again, as in Vietnam, the ever escalating strategy of tension against all countries who exhibit less than total and unconditional obedience to Washington will continue. Victoria Nuland is nothing more than a modern version of Cecil Rhodes; the ever probing tentacle of a voracious empire. In fact, It's really the same one.

    hp , December 30, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    The ripened fruit of the pervert Freud's pervert nephew Edward Bernays. (how the usurping usurers roll)

    Jacob , December 31, 2014 at 11:51 pm

    "In the 1980s, the Reagan administration pioneered 'perception management' to get the American people to 'kick the Vietnam Syndrome' and accept more U.S. interventionism, . . ."

    The management of public perception within the U.S. regarding its imperialistic/colonial ambitions goes back much further than the 1980s. The Committee on Public Information, also known as "the Creel Commission," was the likely model Reagan wanted to imitate. The purpose of the CPI was to convince the American public, which was mostly anti-war, to support America's entry into the European war, also known as WWI. The CPI was in official operation from 1917 to 1919 during the Woodrow Wilson administration. But the paradigm for the use of mass propaganda to alter public perceptions is the Congregatio de propaganda fide (The Office for the Propagation of the Faith), a 1622 Vatican invention to undermine the spread of Protestantism by managing public perceptions on religious and spiritual matters.

    [Oct 16, 2017] The USA as oligachy by Ganesh Sitaraman

    Those who have economic power also have political power. Is this sop difficult to understand.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The system, in other words, can't really be "rigged" to work for the rich and powerful unless the people are at least willing to accept a government of the rich and powerful. If the general public opposes rule-by-economic-elites, how is it, then, that the wealthy control so much of government? ..."
    "... To prevent this occurrence, ancient Greek elites developed institutions and practices to keep themselves united. Among other things, they passed sumptuary laws, preventing extravagant displays of their wealth that might spark jealously, and they used the secret ballot and consensus building practices to ensure that decisions didn't lead to greater conflict within their cadre. ..."
    "... While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors. Oligarchs in ancient Greece thus used a combination of coercion and co-optation to keep democracy at bay. They gave rewards to informants and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government. ..."
    "... These collaborators legitimized the regime and gave oligarchs beachheads into the people. In addition, oligarchs controlled public spaces and livelihoods to prevent the people from organizing. They would expel people from town squares: a diffuse population in the countryside would be unable to protest and overthrow government as effectively as a concentrated group in the city. ..."
    "... They also tried to keep ordinary people dependent on individual oligarchs for their economic survival, similar to how mob bosses in the movies have paternalistic relationships in their neighborhoods. Reading Simonton's account, it is hard not to think about how the fragmentation of our media platforms is a modern instantiation of dividing the public sphere, or how employees and workers are sometimes chilled from speaking out. ..."
    "... Oligarchs would fund the creation of a new building or the beautification of a public space. The result: the people would appreciate elite spending on those projects and the upper class would get their names memorialized for all time. After all, who could be against oligarchs who show such generosity? ..."
    "... To understand that, we can turn to an instant classic from a few years ago, Jeffrey Winters' Oligarchy. Winters argues that the key to oligarchy is that a set of elites have enough material resources to spend on securing their status and interests. He calls this "wealth defense," and divides it into two categories. "Property defense" involves protecting existing property – in the old days, this meant building castles and walls, today it involves the rule of law. "Income defense" is about protecting earnings; these days, that means advocating for low taxes. ..."
    "... The challenge in seeing how oligarchy works, Winters says, is that we don't normally think about the realms of politics and economics as fused together. At its core, oligarchy involves concentrating economic power and using it for political purposes. Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality. ..."
    "... Winters argues that there are four kinds of oligarchies, each of which pursues wealth defense through different institutions. These oligarchies are categorized based on whether the oligarchs rule is personal or collective, and whether the oligarchs use coercion. ..."
    "... Simonton offers another solution. He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown." Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people. ..."
    "... Even with compulsory voting Australia still funnels votes to those we don't want to elect in the form of transferable 1st pass the post single member electorates. True democracy would grant proportional representation, and allow citizen initiated binding referenda. ..."
    "... By these measures you could say America has been an oligarchy from its very conception. Look at the robber-barons of the 19th c. There are occasional "raisings of the veil" such as new deal or great society when the general public gets a fair go. The industrial boom of ww2 is what gave the working class a shot at living a decent life - and of course offshoring industry is precisely closing that door again. ..."
    "... Tens of millions of Americans waited patiently for a Dem candidate to talk about our stacked decks, D.C. swamps, and broken systems -- instead, they gave us a Hillary coronation and expected us to embrace the pantsuit. ..."
    "... After university econ training, and a long business career, I now consider education a terrible thing. Knowing what I know now about how our systems really work, when I observe our Congressional leaders looking into the camera with point-blank lies day in and day out, I feel they deserve execution; literally, I am feeling like heads should roll. ..."
    "... In America, oligarchs win when Dems are center right (in practice, not rhetoric) and are sold out to the oligarchs. Case in point, HC. There is no counterbalance to those who are even further to the right. Oligarchs win without a legit 3rd party. ..."
    "... Obama and the Dems lost 1,000 elected positions before Trump came along. It's because he sold out to the big banks. ..."
    "... Small D Democrats. Not big D Democrats. The Clintons are clearly in the oligarch class, much like Trump. It is rather hilarious to hear Trump supporters talk about how he cares for the poor. ..."
    "... Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people. In that moment, the people might unite for long enough that their protests lead to power. With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations. ..."
    "... It never ceases to amaze me how Americans delude themselves into thinking that they live in a democracy. ..."
    "... They don't come by it naturally. Their delusion is pushed along by very well oiled propaganda machines, probably mostly financed by the taxpayers themselves. ..."
    "... Can't recommend Requiem For The American Dream highly enough, absolutely required viewing for anyone wishing to understand the mockery of democracy under which we live. ..."
    Oct 15, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    A few years ago, as I was doing research for a book on how economic inequality threatens democracy, a colleague of mine asked if America was really at risk of becoming an oligarchy. Our political system, he said, is a democracy. If the people don't want to be run by wealthy elites, we can just vote them out.

    The system, in other words, can't really be "rigged" to work for the rich and powerful unless the people are at least willing to accept a government of the rich and powerful. If the general public opposes rule-by-economic-elites, how is it, then, that the wealthy control so much of government?

    The question was a good one, and while I had my own explanations, I didn't have a systematic answer. Luckily, two recent books do. Oligarchy works, in a word, because of institutions.

    In his fascinating and insightful book Classical Greek Oligarchy, Matthew Simonton takes us back to the ancient world, where the term oligarchy was coined. One of the primary threats to oligarchy was that the oligarchs would become divided, and that one from their number would defect, take leadership of the people, and overthrow the oligarchy.

    To prevent this occurrence, ancient Greek elites developed institutions and practices to keep themselves united. Among other things, they passed sumptuary laws, preventing extravagant displays of their wealth that might spark jealously, and they used the secret ballot and consensus building practices to ensure that decisions didn't lead to greater conflict within their cadre.

    Appropriately for a scholar of the classics, Simonton focuses on these specific ancient practices in detail. But his key insight is that elites in power need solidarity if they are to stay in power. Unity might come from personal relationships, trust, voting practices, or – as is more likely in today's meritocratic era – homogeneity in culture and values from running in the same limited circles.

    The ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power

    While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors. Oligarchs in ancient Greece thus used a combination of coercion and co-optation to keep democracy at bay. They gave rewards to informants and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government.

    These collaborators legitimized the regime and gave oligarchs beachheads into the people. In addition, oligarchs controlled public spaces and livelihoods to prevent the people from organizing. They would expel people from town squares: a diffuse population in the countryside would be unable to protest and overthrow government as effectively as a concentrated group in the city.

    They also tried to keep ordinary people dependent on individual oligarchs for their economic survival, similar to how mob bosses in the movies have paternalistic relationships in their neighborhoods. Reading Simonton's account, it is hard not to think about how the fragmentation of our media platforms is a modern instantiation of dividing the public sphere, or how employees and workers are sometimes chilled from speaking out.

    The most interesting discussion is how ancient oligarchs used information to preserve their regime. They combined secrecy in governance with selective messaging to targeted audiences, not unlike our modern spinmasters and communications consultants. They projected power through rituals and processions.

    At the same time, they sought to destroy monuments that were symbols of democratic success. Instead of public works projects, dedicated in the name of the people, they relied on what we can think of as philanthropy to sustain their power. Oligarchs would fund the creation of a new building or the beautification of a public space. The result: the people would appreciate elite spending on those projects and the upper class would get their names memorialized for all time. After all, who could be against oligarchs who show such generosity?

    An assistant professor of history at Arizona State University, Simonton draws heavily on insights from social science and applies them well to dissect ancient practices. But while he recognizes that ancient oligarchies were always drawn from the wealthy, a limitation of his work is that he focuses primarily on how oligarchs perpetuated their political power, not their economic power.

    To understand that, we can turn to an instant classic from a few years ago, Jeffrey Winters' Oligarchy. Winters argues that the key to oligarchy is that a set of elites have enough material resources to spend on securing their status and interests. He calls this "wealth defense," and divides it into two categories. "Property defense" involves protecting existing property – in the old days, this meant building castles and walls, today it involves the rule of law. "Income defense" is about protecting earnings; these days, that means advocating for low taxes.

    The challenge in seeing how oligarchy works, Winters says, is that we don't normally think about the realms of politics and economics as fused together. At its core, oligarchy involves concentrating economic power and using it for political purposes. Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality.

    Winters argues that there are four kinds of oligarchies, each of which pursues wealth defense through different institutions. These oligarchies are categorized based on whether the oligarchs rule is personal or collective, and whether the oligarchs use coercion.

    Warring oligarchies, like warlords, are personal and armed. Ruling oligarchies like the mafia are collective and armed. In the category of unarmed oligarchies, sultanistic oligarchies (like Suharto's Indonesia) are governed through personal connections. In civil oligarchies, governance is collective and enforced through laws, rather than by arms.

    Democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.'

    With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing.

    They build a legal system that is skewed to work in their favor, so that their illegal behavior rarely gets punished. And they sustain all of this through a campaign finance and lobbying system that gives them undue influence over policy. In a civil oligarchy, these actions are sustained not at the barrel of the gun or by the word of one man, but through the rule of law.

    If oligarchy works because its leaders institutionalize their power through law, media, and political rituals, what is to be done? How can democracy ever gain the upper hand? Winters notes that political power depends on economic power. This suggests that one solution is creating a more economically equal society.

    The problem, of course, is that if the oligarchs are in charge, it isn't clear why they would pass policies that would reduce their wealth and make society more equal. As long as they can keep the people divided, they have little to fear from the occasional pitchfork or protest.

    Indeed, some commentators have suggested that the economic equality of the late 20 th century was exceptional because two World Wars and a Great Depression largely wiped out the holdings of the extremely wealthy. On this story, there isn't much we can do without a major global catastrophe.

    Simonton offers another solution. He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown." Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people.

    In that moment, the people might unite for long enough that their protests lead to power. With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations.

    The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.

    Ganesh Sitaraman is the author of The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution

    curiouswes -> antdog , 16 Oct 2017 00:37

    I think the USA is a republic and not a democracy. I also think the distinction isn't a subtle one. Many think we'd be better off as a democracy. I don't. In a democracy, the majority rules. That means when you are in the minority, you don't have a say. The electoral college prevents the larger states from squeezing out the smaller states. However some don't think that is necessarily a problem. Urban life is very different from rural life and we can't make all of the rules based on urban life.
    hardmoney -> trundlesome1 , 16 Oct 2017 00:27
    They're too busy being distracted with Bread and Circuses.
    gregwani , 16 Oct 2017 00:24
    Whilst the suggestion of "creating a more economically equal society" is obviously desirable, it's not exactly a practical recommendation against the context of the rest of the article.

    Herein lies the key: "...they sustain all of this through a campaign finance and lobbying system that gives them undue influence over policy."

    Possible solution? No vote; no donation.

    Curtail corporate funding of political parties, Super PACs, Unions, etc. and have election campaigns financed from public funds ONLY. If you can't vote as an individual person/citizen, you can't contribute.

    This would remove a big barrier to reform - lobbyists and political patronage - and ensure that elected leaders are unshackled, with the freedom to govern based on evidence-based policy and long-term planning rather than just rewarding the corporate elite who put them there.

    BrunoForestier -> Hypatia415 , 16 Oct 2017 00:19
    Even with compulsory voting Australia still funnels votes to those we don't want to elect in the form of transferable 1st pass the post single member electorates. True democracy would grant proportional representation, and allow citizen initiated binding referenda.
    BrunoForestier -> FLanzy61 , 16 Oct 2017 00:12
    White nationalism wasn't necessary when you were 90% of the population - it has only emerged with the mass immigration era, when socially engineered policies threaten to make you a minority in your own nation-state. (yes, I am aware that the indigenous population was here first and was disposessed - but America the nation state was clearly built predominantly on European settlement)

    There used to be an effective form of identity politics - based on working class common interest - that brought a high standard of living to most people (even the oppressed Black minority). It is the splitting of that identity that has allowed the neoliberals to sideline class as a divider of common interest.

    curiouswes -> nonsensefactory , 16 Oct 2017 00:07
    regarding (1): not sure it is feasible and I don't think we should do it if it is. The market is a weird animal imho. Both the hedgers and the speculators can drive a market share price up or down and contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe the speculators are to blame when a company does well. A lot of people got financially devastated because they had holdings in Enron. I wouldn't want to punish those investors even further because they invested in a bad company.

    regarding (2): I agree. The concept of globalism is a good concept. However the way it is being implemented isn't.

    regarding (3): Again I agree. Most of the regular posters who agree with the media nonsense don't post on articles like this one because a paid troll sticks out like a sore thumb on articles like this.

    BrunoForestier , 16 Oct 2017 00:00
    By these measures you could say America has been an oligarchy from its very conception. Look at the robber-barons of the 19th c. There are occasional "raisings of the veil" such as new deal or great society when the general public gets a fair go. The industrial boom of ww2 is what gave the working class a shot at living a decent life - and of course offshoring industry is precisely closing that door again.
    functor , 15 Oct 2017 23:56
    I am not an expert on Greek history but wouldn't the example of Alcibiades suggest that when an oligarchy falls-- due to war and plague in the case of Athens -- dangerous demagogues who break away from the same oligarchy ride the "democratic" wave and cause even more misery like the idiotic invasion of Sicily? Weren't the democratic people-- the landless poor of Athens-- more inclined to war at that point than the oligarchs? In some sense aren't we seeing what happens when a member of the oligarchy breaks away in present day U.S-- Trump rode a populist wave that was very democratic and people powered-- and where has that got us? Sometimes true democracy can be a messy and frightening affair.

    I offer no defense of oligarchies, but the older I get, the more I wonder whether democracy of the people, by the people, is really for ALL the people.

    Take Brexit, Trump, or for a more remote example, the Fascist inspired Hindu right wingers in India. All of them are in many ways a truer representation of the voice of the people, but that voice is so ugly, so exclusionary, so narrow, that one might be forgiven to want the sedate stability of an oligarchy back.

    Bewareofnazihippies -> ChesBay , 15 Oct 2017 23:55
    I'm afraid I have to agree. When thinking on these issues, I have a recurring mental image, it's the crowd scene at Brian's window, in the greatest cinematic example of satire, Life of Brian.

    Brian -"You are all individuals. You are all different! "

    The crowd -"YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS! WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT! "

    Man -"I'm not"

    The crowd -"Ssh! Ssh! "

    antdog -> sejong , 15 Oct 2017 23:41
    ......ahhh, reclining in the facetious lounge; unfortunately, this amusement left us with a candidate ignoring the masses of the American population opening the door for Trump.

    Tens of millions of Americans waited patiently for a Dem candidate to talk about our stacked decks, D.C. swamps, and broken systems -- instead, they gave us a Hillary coronation and expected us to embrace the pantsuit.

    Meanwhile, tens of millions then voted for Trump, knowing point-blank he was lying; they happily voluntarily deceive themselves (current/active); how sad is this reality ?

    mrkris -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 23:40
    As someone already said, instead of treating poor people unequally well, why not treat rich people the same as everyone else- don't let them hide their money from the taxman, don't give the rich unfair breaks and handouts
    curiouswes -> SoAmerican , 15 Oct 2017 23:40

    Do you think that is going to inspire Americans to get out and vote?

    When the choice for the most powerful office in the world comes down to a choice between Donald J Trump and Hillary R Clinton (who were friends before the election started), I tend to think that our problem is not due to voter apathy, but rather voter apathy is due to our problem.

    Those who still participate, still think this is all about the left vs the right because they think they still have a choice. They do. they get to choose between neoliberalism and fascism.

    Alex Cardosa -> koikoi , 15 Oct 2017 23:38
    The way its always been done. At the end of a pike. The rest is just fantasy.
    antdog -> boilingriver , 15 Oct 2017 23:31
    After university econ training, and a long business career, I now consider education a terrible thing. Knowing what I know now about how our systems really work, when I observe our Congressional leaders looking into the camera with point-blank lies day in and day out, I feel they deserve execution; literally, I am feeling like heads should roll.

    Our systems have been hijacked, and the interests of the masses of our populations are being completely ignored--what should be the penalty for selling out, via acute sophisticated engineering, the population of an entire nation ?

    hardmoney -> boilingriver , 15 Oct 2017 23:30
    "Start demanding some laws for them to follow that has some teeth when they lie to us."

    Pretty difficult when the criminals are in charge of lawmaking.

    hardmoney -> boilingriver , 15 Oct 2017 23:30
    "Start demanding some laws for them to follow that has some teeth when they lie to us."

    Pretty difficult when the criminals are in charge of lawmaking.

    PGNEWC -> SoAmerican , 15 Oct 2017 23:30
    I dont think its a belief in 2 parties but a belief in a type of fixed yin and yang that drives this

    Opposites like Good v Evil , the Unknown Others (like Foreigners) v the known (your Family /Friends ) etc . We see things as Either/Or because it is the simplest way of making sense of our world. But the world is far more complex and nuanced than this and there are degrees of rightness and wrongness and we as you say take on board the whole rigid structure of one side or the other -- it plays right into the oligarchs hands

    Bewareofnazihippies -> peter nelson , 15 Oct 2017 23:18
    Your instant dismissal of zaarth's point of view is the essential problem of modern democracy - casual demeaning and disregarding attitude from the ruling elites towards an informed citizen expressing concerns of inequality and systemic concentration of political power to the oligarchs.

    Typical.

    There maybe no political will to address these issues, but there sure as hell is plenty of social will! As for your last sentence "- So redistributionist policies have no future. ", well, considering that we've had 40years of global wealth being redistributed to the 1%, it's about time it was spread around a bit more equitably, don't you think?

    Be Gold , 15 Oct 2017 23:02
    In America, oligarchs win when Dems are center right (in practice, not rhetoric) and are sold out to the oligarchs. Case in point, HC. There is no counterbalance to those who are even further to the right. Oligarchs win without a legit 3rd party.
    koikoi , 15 Oct 2017 22:39
    A article. A case in point - Iceland, where the elite owns the fishing fleet and controls the financial industry, whereas the majority of the population barely scrape by. People are furious but how do you overturn centuries of oligarch 'rule and law'?
    vr13vr -> Dave514 , 15 Oct 2017 22:38
    Disagree. "Why" is always a question. If you don't know and understand "why," the original intent of a law, you can't interpret and apply it properly. As a result, it gets perverted to the point that it does no longer make sense. We have plenty of examples in the US.

    Without why you can't adapt to the changing environment either.

    vr13vr -> Wolframite , 15 Oct 2017 22:35
    But how successfully? And with how much resources, compared to various industrial and other deep pocket lobbies?
    franklin100 -> kizbot , 15 Oct 2017 22:34
    Yes, it's the same wherever people keep their mouth shut to keep their job. That's the corrosive effect of corruption.
    hardmoney -> SoAmerican , 15 Oct 2017 22:31
    Do you know how small the odds are to get a large group of people to rally (or vote) around a cause? This is why grassroots have a low success rate. The founding fathers certainly knew how small the odds are and gave the people a bone they naively believed to be useful and powerful; the right to vote. It is one of the biggest cons played on the people and has managed to keep the natives quiet and complacent, while the elite and powerful do their bidding.
    franklin100 -> Nada89 , 15 Oct 2017 22:30
    As the joke goes, I welcome our new oligarch overlord. Yes, most likely one fallen oligarch will be replaced by another.
    kyoung21b -> helenus , 15 Oct 2017 22:09
    The ones that rob you blind, wantonly if they're called republicans and apologetically if they're called democrats.
    franklin100 -> Bewareofnazihippies , 15 Oct 2017 22:06
    To get back to the argument about the oligarchs buying collaborators, everybody who keeps their mouth shut to keep their job falls into that category. So that's the majority in work.
    boilingriver -> antdog , 15 Oct 2017 22:06
    That's why i want to go after the politicians and bypass their evil, selfish, stupid pawns they are encouraging right now.

    Start demanding some laws for them to follow that has some teeth when they lie to us.
    They want to sanction Russia who was just repeating what republican/tea party had been saying.

    antdog , 15 Oct 2017 21:58
    "A loophole in American tax law permits companies with just 20 percent foreign ownership to reincorporate abroad, which means that if a big U.S. firm acquires a smaller company located in a tax haven, it can then "invert" – that is, become a subsidiary of its foreign-based affiliate – and kiss a huge share of its IRS obligations goodbye.........Over the next decade, corporate inversions could cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $20 billion" Rolling Stone

    *******

    They made this legal, folks, and it's just the tip of the iceburg. Meanwhile, not a peep (cricket, cricket, cricket.....)

    sejong -> thenthelightningwill , 15 Oct 2017 21:56
    As Putin said, when a spring is compressed all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard.

    Trump caught that wave perfectly. Clinton was wading in the kiddie pool.

    franklin100 -> MoonMoth , 15 Oct 2017 21:54
    Corporate lobbyists have so much more wealth than the incomes of individual politicians, that is their political salary, that they are all bought not so much with brown envelopes but with jobs like Osborne's, a day's work a month for Blackrock for which he is paid Ł650k a year. It's so obviously not a payment for what will be done as for what has been done.
    HistoryHacker , 15 Oct 2017 21:53
    Thought provoking and excellent comments that should be read before opining. As for my opinion, it seems that communism was left out when it might just be the answer to a conundrum that seems unresolvable. Uniformity of wealth within reason (the rule of seven times) can be achieved and sustained. But that requires education which again, can be achieved and sustained. That is, if we don't blow ourselves to smithereens before we achieve such a heightened state which after all should be a...normal?!
    thenthelightningwill -> sejong , 15 Oct 2017 21:51
    Obama and the Dems lost 1,000 elected positions before Trump came along. It's because he sold out to the big banks. We don't need two Wall St. parties. Until the Dems learn to respect their voters and do things like support single payer, this is all we get.
    sejong -> antdog , 15 Oct 2017 21:49
    Debbie Wasserman's decide our candidates, thus, our elections.

    You make a good point. DWS and HRC: it's all their fault that Trump is president.

    antdog -> Will D , 15 Oct 2017 21:48
    ......whaaaa ? You mean to tell me coronation is not true democracy ?

    I need to upchuck.

    SoAmerican , 15 Oct 2017 21:47
    The primary institution that drives oligarchy in the US is the "two party system". It is not enshrined in the Constitution. It is purely the working of the political class. The people need to quit believing that there can only be two parties.
    antdog -> boilingriver , 15 Oct 2017 21:45
    The spin and brainwash are now far, far more powerful than the 1960's.

    How else do you explain tens of millions of formerly hardworking middle class, now on the outside looking in (with their adult children), continuing to wave the flag, with a large smile on their faces, all the way to the poorhouse day in and day out--and not even a peep?

    SoAmerican -> zzoetrope , 15 Oct 2017 21:44
    Honestly though, it becomes more undemocratic when people rag on it sy as you have done above. Do you think that is going to inspire Americans to get out and vote? What you don't understand, or maybe you do too well, is that the biggest threat to democracy in the US is apathy. When you present it as such a situation that there is no reprieve, then why should they vote?
    Will D -> Andrew Stronto , 15 Oct 2017 21:35
    As the article points out the oligarchs use selected messaging, which includes anti-left propaganda and misinformation. So the result is that any political movement that is left of centre (and the centre has shifted quite a lot to the right in the last few decades) is made to seem like hard-core socialism or even communism.

    When you look at the policies from Bernie Sanders in the USA and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, and see how they've been attacked by the right-wing media, but when you put them into the perspective of the policies of the 60' and 70's they aren't even particularly left-wing. Most would have been described as centrist policies.

    The oligarchs have succeeded in moving the goal posts to the right and made centrist policies seem dangerously left-wing.

    Will D -> Tom Wessel , 15 Oct 2017 21:27
    They don't overlook it because they have been bought by it. Today's 'democrats' are complicit, and rely on it for their post-political income.
    nonsensefactory , 15 Oct 2017 21:26
    Modern oligarchs owe their political and economic power to a variety of structures and systems, such as:
    (1) The limited-liability, shareholder-controlled corporation, designed to maximize profits for the shareholders while protecting them from the consequences of their actions (why can't one sue the shareholders of ExxonMobil for the actions of the company that they control?)

    (2) The global neoliberal 'free-trade' unlimited-capital-flow system, which allows oligarchs to pit nation-states and workers against one another in a race to the bottom for the lowest wages and pollution and safety standards - a system promoted by both Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, which has boosted profits for oligarchs and destroyed the middle class.

    (3) The monopolistic tightly-controlled corporate media system, which promotes the interests of the oligarchs who own and control it, setting the narrative played out across television, radio, print media and much of the Internet to the overall population in a remarkably coordinated fashion - such that most 'media' serves to distract or deceive the public, rather than to inform.

    There are no doubt others - such as tax codes that allow the rich to accumulate vast wealth, while stripping wealth from poor people and the middle class - but those are among the most important factors.

    SoAmerican -> Tom Wessel , 15 Oct 2017 21:23
    Small D Democrats. Not big D Democrats. The Clintons are clearly in the oligarch class, much like Trump. It is rather hilarious to hear Trump supporters talk about how he cares for the poor.
    boilingriver , 15 Oct 2017 21:19
    Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people.

    In that moment, the people might unite for long enough that their protests lead to power. With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations.

    It always takes a revolution/ protest from the people to throw out the political corruption and then the rich just start again.
    Until we get some laws that they have to follow and serious jail time when they do not, we will not have decent people to choose from. The reason we have such crappy choices is this is the only job in the world where you can lie and cheat to your boss (us) and face no serious consequences.

    robinaldlowrise , 15 Oct 2017 21:02
    It's difficult to see how Ancient Greece fits into either of those narratives if Aristotle's conclusions from his contemporary, careful, empirical (yes, really) investigations of the whole range of political variants present in Ancient Greece entered into their analyses. For a start, even in political units as small as a city-state, he rates democracy as a degenerate form of government (albeit the best of all three degenerate forms) that naturally tends towards oligarchy (another degenerate form), though – give or take some refinement of concepts involved – a proper mix of both results in the best form of "rule by the many", namely "polity", in an over-all ranking of forms of government by good or "correctness" that is topped by monarchy and tailed by tyranny.

    Getting in to all this while not falling victim to the modern trigger word syndrome requires significantly greater subtlety of thought than seems to be deployed by either of the authors under consideration, though how much of their analyses has slipped by the author of this piece is unknowable on the basis of the evidence here available. Have any of the trio even considered a Ancient Ryanair trip to Ancient Greece for a third millennium looksee?

    Andrew Stronto -> Hypatia415 , 15 Oct 2017 20:55
    The oligarchs best work is done through divide and conquer and should they ultimately be truly threatened then they will prevail through an order out of chaos of their own creation. Most issues you mention like the widening gap between the rich and poor, climate change.. yada yada are engineered to fracture society to make us all easier to control. Oh and they love to stamp their handy work so keep an "eye" out for them !
    Tom Wessel , 15 Oct 2017 20:53
    " Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality . "

    Hog wash! They know where the money is and they want it transferred into their pockets. And if some of that money trickles down to the less fortunate, they surely will take credit for it. The Clintons didn't become multi-millionaires by concentrating on inequality.

    Roderick Llewellyn -> boilingriver , 15 Oct 2017 20:51
    I suspect the article's Author, when he said "democrats" (notice lower case) was not referring to the political party the Democrats (upper case). He meant any who advocate for an increase in democracy. This presumably overlaps with the Democratic Party, but by no means is congruent to it.
    Tom Wessel -> helenus , 15 Oct 2017 20:46
    They are the ones that always have a smile on their faces and constantly give to charities from the monies they exploited from the ignorant masses. Then in retaliation, the masses put them on pedestals. It's a very simply routine. Wash, rinse and repeat.
    boilingriver , 15 Oct 2017 20:43
    Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality.

    The Dem voters do not overlook that. To be fair the Dem politicians do look at economic policy. Affordable health care using the rich taxes, environment, clean drinking water and making CO responsible. Just look at what trump tea/party are dismantling. Dems are also for increasing min wage. They should do better, but they are not as worthless as republicans. The republicans work for the rich not us.

    I find it strange that you never called out the republicans actions, just the Dems. The republicans are the ones putting in the policies/laws that are cementing the riches power and making our lives worse.

    Hypatia415 , 15 Oct 2017 20:42
    A very deep and timely article given that oligarchies threaten the very survival of our world. Think the widening gap between the rich and poor, climate change, environmental degradation, war and the mass movements of people fleeing all of the above.
    Even with democracy and compulsory ballots in Australia voters still believe their best interests lie with the representatives of the oligarchs, the banks, financial services and transnational corporations.
    Mercurey -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 20:41
    Demonstrably not the case when one looks at successful periods of progressive policies such Butkers Education act. The idea that the fruits of life are distributed according to talent & effort is a grim joke that can be dismissed out of hand.

    Social privilege repeats itself & counteracting that is a moral duty. As is exposing the myths that justify it.

    RobertLlDavies -> peter nelson , 15 Oct 2017 20:29
    You haven't got a clue. have you. I've spent years recruiting people into unions in small unorganised workplaces, where employers do their best to victimise anyone who tries to form a union. Many people are either afraid of joining a union - or they have no idea what unions do, except for the rubbish printed about in the anti-union papers (viz. most of them). I'm happy to say that, in the end, we succeed in enabling workers to get together in many workplaces to defend and improve their lot at work. I live in a traditional working class area, near many unionised and non-unionised workplaces. Whate about you? How many ordinary workers have you ever discussed these matters with? How many trades unionists?
    stanphillips , 15 Oct 2017 20:28
    Read the "Iron Heel" by Jack London" for a description of an extreme oligarchy set in the USA of the early twentieth century. The book is a narrative by the wife and partner of the main male character Ernest Everhard (interesting name I know). Some of Everhard's descriptions of what London saw as consolidation of the American oligarchs are succinct and chilling. If you haven't read it then it really demonstrates in a fictional sense how long the concept of modern oligarchies have been around:
    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1164
    hardmoney -> zzoetrope , 15 Oct 2017 20:19
    "It never ceases to amaze me how Americans delude themselves into thinking that they live in a democracy."

    They don't come by it naturally. Their delusion is pushed along by very well oiled propaganda machines, probably mostly financed by the taxpayers themselves.

    zzoetrope , 15 Oct 2017 20:14

    Our political system, he said, is a democracy. If the people don't want to be run by wealthy elites, we can just vote them out.

    It never ceases to amaze me how Americans delude themselves into thinking that they live in a democracy. The US executive, arguable the most powerful collection of people in the world, is substantially un-elected. Only the President stands for election and he's not elected by the people but by an undemocratic electoral college; Hilary Clinton received the most votes and lost the election.

    The rest of the Executive aren't elected, they're appointed and you can't "just vote them out".

    Then there's Congress where electorates are so gerrymandered that in the vast majority of cases the results are foregone conclusions; national elections are decided in a few "swinging" seats. Congress is also corrupted by the dependence of the system on massive donations, by lobbyists, and vested interests.

    Of the world's democracies, the Unites States must be one of the least democratic.

    hardmoney , 15 Oct 2017 20:08
    And the Oscar goes to America, land of the free and milk and honey; created, propagandized and brought to you by the Hollywood tv and film industry for the last 100 years.
    skydolphinattakforce , 15 Oct 2017 20:05
    in America the 2 partys pretty much control the election and they are both part of the oligarchy. so I don't think theres much hope for the U.S.
    PennyCarter -> RBHoughton , 15 Oct 2017 20:02
    I recently read an essay where the American political system is likened to a rodeo. The bull is the voting public being ridden by the oligarchs. If the oligarch falls off the bull the bull is distracted by the rodeo clown (the president) until he can get back on the bull.
    Tom Wessel -> Manacatsaman , 15 Oct 2017 19:57
    " I personally wonder,... just how much longer this level of stupidity will persist. "

    Probably well into the disaster of global warming.

    Tom Wessel -> peter nelson , 15 Oct 2017 19:53
    " Who exactly are the oligarchs? Do you think that they know that they are oligarchs? "

    I doubt a pervert or rapist looks at himself as such.

    gerryinoz , 15 Oct 2017 19:52
    Who are our oligarchs and who do they finance, lobby, influence and control in Canberra?
    The law. The fucking law is mainly for the very wealthy or influential, not for grafters like me.
    Still, all in all, in Oz we have a labor party that gave us decent wages, Medicare and super.I think our oligarchs are greedy bastards but not as severe as the American, Russian or Arab oligarchs. The French knew how to deal with theirs in the 18th century and a couple of ours could do with that treatment.
    desertrat49 -> GimmeHendrix , 15 Oct 2017 19:51
    As Socrates was forever doing...if we do not define our terms, we quickly end up in the weeds. Britain is King in Parliament (badly corrupted under Victoria!) and America is a Plutocratic Republic!...No Democracy intended...or delivered...but much mythologized none the less!
    Tom Wessel -> aldebaranredstar , 15 Oct 2017 19:51
    "kind of like taking a knee ...we shouldn't be pursuing niche interest anymore."

    Police brutality is a "niche" Issue? I can see you haven't met a Brown Shirt you didn't like.

    RBHoughton , 15 Oct 2017 19:51
    The American people cannot vote out the oligarchs because they make the rules of the game and the electorate must comply. The author seems to suppose there is a democracy operating on this planet when the nearest we have approached that ideal is the supposedly representative democracies of numerous countries.

    One of the features that reinforce the oligarchy in power in USA is the agenda of the nine Supreme Court judges who approved 'Citizens United' and assured the oligarchs that the man with the money would call the shots.

    Another important point that does not surface in this article is the 600BC institution, jointly with democracy, of theatre. That allowed playwrights to present the naive electorate with plays enacting the hard choices that citizens would have to make now they were responsible for their own government. There is a group of greats scholars on the BBC's 2014 series "Guilty Pleasures" who discuss and approve this point.

    JosephCamilleri -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 19:49
    On balance over thousands of years some rich bastards made some good decisions? How scientific of you. Not so much a logical argument as a watery fart.
    Bewareofnazihippies , 15 Oct 2017 19:48
    Please Guardian, don't close this comments section too soon.
    This topic truly goes to the heart of why so much of humanity's failings of governance and stewardship of the Earth is so malevolent.
    The quality of the responses highlight that many readers recognize that this is THE issue that underlies so many of our existing problems.
    Tom Wessel , 15 Oct 2017 19:48
    " Ancient Greek elites developed institutions and practices to keep themselves united. "

    Nothing couldn't be more relevant then the Guardian running Hillary Clinton articles. Saw at least 3 on the front page right now. Let's keep the elite neoliberals in power.

    desertrat49 -> TallulahD , 15 Oct 2017 19:46
    Like I said elsewhere, one has to first define citizenship and who has the franchise before one gets too carried away by talk of Democracy!
    JosephCamilleri -> Amanzim , 15 Oct 2017 19:44
    There are democracies and "democracies". India has a ruling class that rules for its class, so not really that democratic. India isn't USA, USA isn't Australia, Australian isn't Germany, Germany isn't the Netherlands. That's roughly the scale.
    desertrat49 -> PennyCarter , 15 Oct 2017 19:44
    One of the interesting conceits of American culture is the way that the mega rich envision themselves as simply middle class...one sees it all the time.
    The short answer is that the politically aware Oligarchs know very well who they are....and the wannabes know who they are as well!
    My favourite is still one of the Koch brothers saying that he had no problem with Oligarchy...so long as he got the government that he paid for! Beautiful!!
    aldebaranredstar , 15 Oct 2017 19:40
    More than oligarchs I see alliances built on niche interests, or interests that are particular to a group of people. these special interests are wedge issues for that group, kind of like taking a knee and how that affects the NFL and ripples through the whole culture. Too many niche interests are being pushed forward, and that's why there's no consensus or very little. That's why there is gridlock and stasis. we shouldn't be pursuing niche interest anymore. we need larger consensus agreements, things we can agree on in society as a whole, and we got to keep talking until we find that agreement. that's how I see it
    sejong , 15 Oct 2017 19:33
    A hundred years ago, as the West industrialized, oligarchs wielded power via the employment relationship. Beginning a generation ago with the transfer of manufacturing to China, the instrument of power shifted to media. Murdoch was one of the first to exploit this. And now we have Trump.
    guest0987 -> Zaarth , 15 Oct 2017 19:28
    Agree totally. Redistribution of wealth to keep a few from controlling everything is what we need. And this does have a future as moving to the left is the way for the US to go. The right has shown for at least the past 40 years to offer nothing.
    Redredemptionist -> WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 19:22
    Dear WT..., WT... do you mean by:

    "the oligarchy of Socialism" ?
    "giving people too many rights" ? and
    "neutralises everything to a standstill" ?

    Too many 'dog whistles' make a strong sound but no meaningful sense what so ever!

    PennyCarter -> peter nelson , 15 Oct 2017 19:21
    My guess is that oligarchs don't even think they are oligarchs. They probably think they are actually part of a meritocracy, having conflated the rigged political system with what they believe to be their superior abilities
    Dave514 -> Dave514 , 15 Oct 2017 19:18
    Sorry that was WSC.
    JamesValencia -> Dave514 , 15 Oct 2017 19:17
    The "?" was merely rhetorical, as is usually the case on t'interwebs :)
    peter nelson -> MartinSilenus , 15 Oct 2017 19:14
    The comments in this thread mostly seem to be by whinging old style Labour supporters, who can no longer hide the contempt that they have for ordinary people - your "apathetic proles".
    Dave514 -> JamesValencia , 15 Oct 2017 19:14
    "Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus
    mus." The original Latin quote used by WAX to accurately describe Attlee.
    peter nelson -> 3melvinudall , 15 Oct 2017 19:12
    Oh rubbish. People choose whether to join a union. It takes closed shop contracts to enforce union membership, and the fact that unions seldom form in right to work states prove that when given a choice most workers don't want to join a union.
    peter nelson -> Timothy Everton , 15 Oct 2017 19:09
    Nonsense. The American government was elected by the voters. Local and state government to draw the voting districts for US house races were elected by the voters. US Senate governor and presidential races cannot be gerrymandered. And Hillary Clinton WAY outspent Donald Trump.

    Progressives need to stop whining and complaining about the Koch brothers and start putting together a slate of candidates and ideas that ordinary Americans want to vote for.

    Sailor25 -> theseligsussex , 15 Oct 2017 19:06
    Looted and raised off the back of slaves but in the process laying the foundation of western civilisation.

    My point isn't that it's fair or right or good. My point is that the concentration of power and wealth in a small group of individuals often leads to incredible development that betters all of humanity down the line.

    peter nelson -> Zaarth , 15 Oct 2017 19:06
    Who cares what you support? There is no political will for such a thing and the general direction of democratically elected governments is toward the right not the left. So redistributionist policies have no future.
    peter nelson -> Manacatsaman , 15 Oct 2017 19:04
    Money IS speech. Surely if the founding fathers intended to protect any particular kind of speech, it must have been political speech. So if I want to use my money to promote a particular policy or political candidate then any attempt by the government to prevent that is obviously and clearly a violation of my right to political speech.
    Bewareofnazihippies , 15 Oct 2017 19:01
    One of the best articles I've read here. It's about time an article like this finally gets a hearing. I mostly read these kind of arguments and perspectives from the comments section. So well done.
    JamesValencia -> rikmac78 , 15 Oct 2017 19:00
    Well, given what I said above, one might expect me to agree, but I wouldn't: New Labour nevertheless did an enormous amound of good: A fairer britain, enormously improved public services, the business sector properly regulated. taxation improved.

    The problem was Blair. The background was Labour, which kept on beavering away with Labour principles: "society first" in a word.

    New Labour achieved a huge amount. A shame abour Blair. If John Smith hadn't dropped dead, it might be different. With emphasis on "might" - at least Smith, although also restructuring Labour towards the centre, wasn't so bent on reneging Labour core values.

    Luckily the Labour party reneged little: Labour endures :)

    nottrue , 15 Oct 2017 18:59
    Very interesting. While it currently appears impossible to win back democracy there might be some hope. I sense that things might change soon. The debacle of the current electricity market in Australia and lack of action to mitigate climate change can be seen in the light of the Oligarchy's fear of losing their wealth base, which could end up in a rise of democracy.'
    TallulahD , 15 Oct 2017 18:56
    In Athens, enslavement for debt had been a fundamental law from the time of Draco in the 39th Olympiad in the 7th Century BC. However, in the sixth century BC, the lawgiver Solon ordained a radical new constitution: by cancelling all debts both public and private, he "liberated the people once and for all" thus paving the way for all citizens to be admitted into the Assembly: Aristotle, "The Athenian Constitution", Parts 6 and 43 (although the Athenian form of direct democracy was a limited concept by modern standards - to become a citizen one had to be an adult male, born of citizen parents).
    Manacatsaman , 15 Oct 2017 18:38
    Most people in the U.S. conflate democracy with capitalism; there's no comprehension of separateness of political and economic "systems". The prevailing idea is that "America is a nation of business" and in the 19th Century the Supreme Court declared corporations to be individual persons and most recently confirmed that "money is speech". So, the people who have the ability to vote out the oligarchy don't even know what one is, or why it's bad for them. Thus a lying, cheating, greedy "Billionaire" is seen by the middle and lower classes, or as I'm sure Trump refers to them behind closed doors, "my marks", as their savior. I personally wonder, as the Trump Administration works tirelessly to grind its base into the dirt, just how much longer this level of stupidity will persist.
    SteveofCaley , 15 Oct 2017 18:38
    The process of branding and advertising, a century old, places unmerited trust in non-human entities, corporations and institutions. Humans are slick and untrustworthy. We assume that Police Departments are always kind. If harm occurs, is it a rotten cop or rotten citizen? Pick one. Ask a disloyal NFL player. They hate the troops, peace, freedom and justice, right?
    The modern oligarchy is to hide behind labels and brands. God so loved the world that he founded a privately-held nonprofit with tax advantages ...whatnow? Exxon owns your axxons, folks.
    SocAlan , 15 Oct 2017 18:38

    At the same time, they sought to destroy monuments that were symbols of democratic success.

    Privatisation!

    Sailor25 -> EquilibriaJones , 15 Oct 2017 18:35
    People always die, the default position of humanity is grinding poverty.

    What we should be looking at is why come civilisations escaped that. A modern Britain is less likely to die of poverty today than at any other time in history.

    The concentration of wealth in small groups of individuals often provides the impetus for development. To much concentration of wealth means you end up with exploitation of the plebs the flip side leaves you with economic stagnation.

    The key as in most things is getting the balance right.

    SocAlan , 15 Oct 2017 18:32

    They gave rewards to informants and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government.

    Does this not remind one of the last Labour government?

    Timothy Everton -> Dave514 , 15 Oct 2017 18:31
    Do a bit of reading. I would suggest Nancy MacLean's "Democracy in Chains" for a start. It has a direct line to the big-money influence of the Koch family over the U.S. government. There are many others, of course.
    Hector Hajnal -> DolyGarcia , 15 Oct 2017 18:30
    ehmm well... thats something that must start within the family and the community, if family fails theres the community if community fails thats window open to attack. Even so I have been knew fellows and sisters that even in the must adverse circumstances manage to make themselves educated and with a good criteria vice versa with fellows from a good environment turn to be as... so is a matter of choose as well. The problem with that is that this are the times of internet instant gratification which create the perfect scenario to create a bunch of idiotics egocentric lunatics with not will nor performance at all just slaves to machines. So ehmmm we need some kind of a bomb which disables some of the technology, not all, just for a while and try to get some to nromal
    Sailor25 -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 18:29
    I wouldn't like to live in an extreme oligarchy either but we must remember our present will be somebodies past.

    Money we direct away from growth to support our current living standard makes the people of tommorow less wealthy.

    As I posted earlier there needs to be balance but we shouldn't assume oligarchy is a bad thing in of itself.

    Guangudo -> GimmeHendrix , 15 Oct 2017 18:28
    I would say oligarchy or oligarchy, because "democracy" does not really exist, it never did. Nothing will change unless we do away with Darwinism.
    Guangudo , 15 Oct 2017 18:15
    "Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratía literally "rule of the people"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".

    Having this definition in mind I do find rather bizarre that everyone insists on calling such a system a "democracy" when it is a fact that women and slaves where not allowed to vote.

    Nowadays is getting somehow worse, because manipulation and agnotology have upset everything. The systems control perfectly everything and this charade are done by a power in the shadow, and although most people ignore it, this Power is theocratic.

    The fact that repeating a lie constantly does not make it an axiom ...

    MartinSilenus -> sparx104 , 15 Oct 2017 18:12
    1984 is my `favourite` book, the subtext is that there is in fact no hope from the proles, as Winston Smith comes to see. They are apathetic & any who might rouse them, are liquidated. They have the power to overthrow the party, but are mostly just ignored by it, & so just get on with their lives. The lesson is that power, without the will to use it, is meaningless: still true as it happens.
    Dave514 -> 3melvinudall , 15 Oct 2017 18:07
    My, my, you've got this all sorted out so we'll have a dictatorship that is able to abolish the Supreme Court and Congress. Wow!
    rikmac78 -> JamesValencia , 15 Oct 2017 18:06
    New Labour is simply a lighter shade of Tory power...
    Pushk1n -> blogdubdrib , 15 Oct 2017 18:00
    Francis Galton was a founder of the science of statistics and a bit of a snob.

    Galton was a keen observer. In 1906, visiting a livestock fair, he stumbled upon an intriguing contest. An ox was on display, and the villagers were invited to guess the animal's weight after it was slaughtered and dressed. Nearly 800 participated, and Galton was able to study their individual entries after the event.

    Galton stated that "the middlemost estimate expresses the vox populi, every other estimate being condemned as too low or too high by a majority of the voters",[45] and reported this value (the median, in terminology he himself had introduced, but chose not to use on this occasion) as 1,207 pounds. To his surprise, this was within 0.8% of the weight measured by the judges. Soon afterwards, in response to an enquiry, he reported[46] the mean of the guesses as 1,197 pounds, but did not comment on its improved accuracy. Recent archival research[47] has found some slips in transmitting Galton's calculations to the original article in Nature: the median was actually 1,208 pounds, and the dressed weight of the ox 1,197 pounds, so the mean estimate had zero error. James Surowiecki[48] uses this weight-judging competition as his opening example: had he known the true result, his conclusion on the wisdom of the crowd would no doubt have been more strongly expressed.

    He thought the judges local yokels and was expecting to laugh instead he found that irrespective of perceived intelligence the mean of the wisdom of the crowd ( the 800 entering the competition for a prize) was surprisingly accurate.

    There are more things in Heaven and Earth ....

    Dave514 -> glenns , 15 Oct 2017 17:59
    And you know this specifically how?
    J4Zonian -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 17:58
    US media hasn't been "leftist" ever. In the 1930s and a few other periods it's had significant minorities that were liberal or leftish, but otherwise, it's mostly right-of-center imperial support mechanism media; now and increasingly, it's extreme right wing (Fox, Murdoch (WSJ, National Geographic, etc.) Clear Channel and Sinclair dominating TV and radio with more than 1000 stations. Reporters are sometimes left-leaning but that has little or nothing to do with what's published. Hollywood tends to be liberal on social issues but rarely moves off the imperial support wagon except for occasional dips into history to communicate with platitudes. Any media that considers Obama and Clinton anything but right of center corporate duopolists is way over on the right wing; that includes everything 95% of people ever hear or see--all networks, cable, every daily newspaper... The Guardian a little bit, Pacifica radio's 5 stations, Mother Jones and sort of The Nation, Common Dreams and a few other sites, blogs etc.--that's the left in the US. Pitiful, especially considering that a large majority of people in the US favor very liberal positions on almost all issues except war, death penalty and imprisonment.
    Dave514 -> JamesValencia , 15 Oct 2017 17:56
    British Rail was even a greater disaster ushered in by Clement, the mountains laboured a d brought forth a mouse, Attlee
    curiouswes -> RapidSloth , 15 Oct 2017 17:55
    For me, things really took a decisive turn for the worst when Wilson was president. Before that, the defacto government wasn't codified. According to this wikipedia article the was a "growing concern" about the so called money trust.

    The Pujo Committee was a United States congressional subcommittee in 1912–1913 that was formed to investigate the so-called "money trust", a community of Wall Street bankers and financiers that exerted powerful control over the nation's finances. After a resolution introduced by congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. for a probe on Wall Street power, congressman Arsčne Pujo of Louisiana was authorized to form a subcommittee of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.

    from the article above:

    In civil oligarchies, governance is collective and enforced through laws, rather than by arms.

    Democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.'
    With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy.

    I don't know much about economics, but from what I think I know, one can speed up or slow down the economy by increasing or decreasing the money supply respectively; and prior to Wilson's term, the government had that power. However after Wilson's term that power moved into the private sector because laws were passed. I see that as a huge problem and from what I can gather, so did Lindbergh:

    The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on depressions will be scientifically created.

    TWOBOBS , 15 Oct 2017 17:51
    I think the citizenry is being screwed by the oligarchy on both the left and the right, which tend to merge into the same thing. Both are about power and control and have very little to do with democracy or individual liberties. Neither the capitalists nor the socialists care much about you. You are a means to an end. Both the right and the left seek to control speech and thought through the media and through institutions. Both the right and left want a disempowered, compliant population.
    JamesValencia , 15 Oct 2017 17:48
    There's lots to think about there. Thanks for a good article, more on democracy please ! It strikes me we're in a situation where we need to relearn what it is, exactly.

    What struck me most was the oligarchy eroding symbols of democracy, and taking over the legal system of government, and I'd add, taking over the management of government through privatisation of government services: The civil service increasingly outsourced to the private sector, that is, the oligarchy.

    This is what "the small state" political project, currently centre stage in the UK and the USA, is leading towards: governments run by the private sector.

    And the response is always "it's cheaper and more efficient! And democracy is the representative - who cares if government departments are shut down and their services delivered by the private sector? It means less tax !"

    And we end up with Network Rail, and the other scandals of privatised services in the UK, and to Labour's undying shame, much of this was ushered in by New Labour.

    Pushk1n -> Light_and_Liberty , 15 Oct 2017 17:46
    I think you need to read the article. Trump fits every definition of an Oligarch, his actions are exactly how Oligarchs survive, true he may not be the only one in the US.
    Skullen -> deeaiden , 15 Oct 2017 17:42
    You sound slightly like a psychopath yourself.
    johnthebaptiste -> alloomis , 15 Oct 2017 17:38
    or even dictatorshiip
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship
    MalicX -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 17:37
    Jessthecrip seems to have been supporting punishment of some kind for people whose actions demonstrably cause actual, serious harm to real people. You seem to consider the actions which create such actual harm (including many deaths) to be a 'political opinion'. I think that's where the difference in attitude lies.
    Shannon Renee Kayne-Amoureux , 15 Oct 2017 17:35
    Bilderberg Group, et al.
    Pushk1n -> GimmeHendrix , 15 Oct 2017 17:35
    You Think, the people were well and truly lied to by rather rich and unscrupulous people who hope to benefit from the chaos as this article makes clear this is the way that Oligarchy works by manipulating and dividing the demos.
    curiouswes -> hardmoney , 15 Oct 2017 17:31

    The problem is and always has been, life is not black or white, but gray. One man's fact is another man's differing opinion.

    True. However, a women has the right to abort a fetus. That is a fact. Now we can have an opinion that she has the right to kill her own fetus, but that wouldn't be a fact because technically we can't ascertain that the fetus is alive because it doesn't necessarily "stay" alive if we remove it from the mother (at least not in the first trimester). Therefore legalized abortion isn't legalized murder. However it is unconstitutional to take everybody's guns away. It really takes verbal gymnastics to try to make the constitution say anything different, so the proponents for gun control swear up and down that they aren't trying to take everybody's guns away. However when you ask what their objective is, they say they want to stop people from killing each other with guns. Without that measuring rod (the constitution), they don't take that tone. Instead they argue that people don't need guns. The same can be said for speech. Hate speech imho does more damage than the right to bear arms, but the 1st amendment gives those fools the right to behave the way the did in Charlottesville. Those who tried to silence them walked on the 1st amendment, again in the name of the greater good. As a black man, I'm not about to side with people who think we need to keep those statues up. I know exactly what those statues represent. However again the constitution is there protecting their right to voice an opinion to say what I vehemently oppose. I can disagree with them but I don't have the constitutional right to silence them. When people want to force others not to speak on college campuses, that isn't constitutional. It is authoritarian. Authoritarianism in the name of the greater good. some don't have a problem with that kind of authoritarianism, but when it comes from the orange one, that's authoritarianism that nobody needs because it's really hard to find his "greater good". His sense of greater good generally seems to benefit some, while marginalizing others. Personally I think his impeachment is now months overdue, but, as you say, that is just my opinion. I think firing Comey was an authoritarian move. I think when a head of state can neutralize his detractors, in theory we can't get rid of him for anything, because he can simply fire any perceived threat to his power. The fact that he is still in power is an outrage to me. But then again, I think it was an outrage that HRC was even running for president. They dumped Gary Hart, because he was having an extramarital affair, but for some reason, HRC was able to walk through "airport security" with all of her baggage. But, "no election rigging" from state side. It was all done by the Russian oligarchs according to our wonderful media. However this is a democracy because we had a choice between, "Lock her up" and "I cannot tell the truth"
    Zaarth , 15 Oct 2017 17:22
    This is why I support wealth redistribution through progressive taxation. It's not so much about achieving "income equality" as it is about preventing power being concentrated in the hands of a few. Extreme wealth is a public danger. Many would trample on our rights for their own profit, convenience, or pleasure, and most politicians are all too eager to let the super wealthy buy their place as public masters.
    Gunsarecivilrights -> Spudnik2 , 15 Oct 2017 17:19
    Voluntaryism is to be commended. Compelling people to be charitable with force is not.
    Adkult -> Newmacfan , 15 Oct 2017 17:02
    Yet you were complaining about regions wanting to separate before. The EU doesn't fund Spain's regional parties by the way, as much as you'd like them to.
    Spudnik2 -> Gunsarecivilrights , 15 Oct 2017 17:01
    I accept that so much of what I see demands action. The world needs more helping hands and kindness.

    You can believe in what ever you like, but actions make all the difference. Donate something like canned food, or volunteer someplace and you can make a real difference in someones life ( more than any book or bible ever did ).

    memo10 -> mjmizera , 15 Oct 2017 16:45

    The industrial-military complex of the 50-70s didn't just disappear, but morphed into today's structures.

    15 years in Iraq & Afghanistan says it never changed at all.

    memo10 -> clshannon , 15 Oct 2017 16:42

    Not true, the standards are high enough, it is the fact that kids from disfunctional families and poverty cannot reach them. So the teachers just pass them on to the next grade anyway. You end up with poorly educated adults who 'know' education is useless according to their experience raising children who continue the cycle.

    The curriculum is demanding enough. They just don't demand anything relevant to people's lives. As long as everything stays irrelevant they can continue rewarding the people who play by the system's rules and punish those who find that stupid and frustrating.

    Ponderbelle -> Gamba Puirida , 15 Oct 2017 16:40
    Reich has a soul full of light and empathy. Once people are allowed to attain their basic needs, the rest is mostly fluff. Nature provides every resource needed to sustain a wholesome existence...not a cash register one to be found in the fields of plenty. Ancient greed has never been faced full-on by humanity. The required efforts to shelter, feed and clothe ourselves are too often run over roughshod due to the number one vice: Profits first and foremost, with the essentials for survival marked for the highest bid; callously termed 'what the market will bear'.

    Democracy? Not in many decades. We are under the total rule of organized business; which applies to most developed nations. The virtues of sharing and goodwill would be one remedy to the basic economic inequalities.

    However, in our current bailout experiment (and, not a few economists are status quo baloney feeders) the inertia is in a free wheeling philosophical advantage to the gods of the highest profit. You'll never see any sympathy cards slated for modern economists. A simple evident reality is that
    our basic needs for survival are the same. Damned if we can manage to seriously address that fact first and create systems which have a clear vision for the betterment and uplift of all.

    It will not be long before the loud financial bubble pop sounds off again - it will be called the inevitable market correction or due to aggressive over reach. Oligarchy will feign much needed financial aid required. We deserve much better. I predict eventually a r e v o l t from those who suffer the insanity of deprivation in a world of plenty. Certainly in the US our votes are mean less and less with the likes of Citizens United. Corporations may be legal entities but they are N O T citizens. All that exists, exists for all.

    kyoung21b -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 16:39
    Yes much more rational to treat everyone "equally" like providing huge subsidies to, e.g. big oil, big ag, and big pharma so they too can appear to be performing equally.
    Obtrectator -> deeaiden , 15 Oct 2017 16:37
    Unworldly middle-class theorists create revolutions but almost invariably cannot control them. They tear up the rule-sheets, failing to understand that that loosens or destroys the restraints on psychopaths of whatever background, who then proceed to hack their way to the top.
    Thus Lenin facilitated Stalin; Sun Yat-sen ultimately resulted in Mao; Desmoulins and the Girondistes were devoured by the Jacobins and their Reign of Terror.
    alloomis , 15 Oct 2017 16:31
    "He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown." Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. " unfortunately, democracy did not defeat oligarchy in ancient greece, except briefly in athens and its dependencies. and the usa is no kind of democracy. voting for who will be your master is not democracy, it is elective aristocracy. and that is the political arm of the economic oligarchy called 'capitalism.'
    Bochi -> threeoutside , 15 Oct 2017 16:28

    Who, exactly, doesn't think of "the realms of politics and economics as fused together"?

    It's been the basic assumption of UK politics from 1997 until 2015 (at least) that there is only one "common sense" economic model that works, and that is an extreme market-oriented form of neo-liberalism.

    Most of the electorate in this country still buy into neo-liberalism's deceitful platitudes as if the argument was over 40 years ago and democracy consists of choosing a few people to manage it every five years.

    3melvinudall , 15 Oct 2017 16:26
    Oligarchs in the US have, for 40 years, taken the power from the people. They have accomplished it by destroying the labor unions and any hint of a labor movement. They have taken control of the media by buying it ( 80 or so owners of MSM to 5 or 6 owners now), they control the narrative. They control what we talk about. They control the politicians by "dark money". Outside money floods strategic states to influence elections down to school board levels. Money is donated to universities with conditions to control who is hired to run certain schools within the university ( the economics school at FSU, for example). Economic policies and tax codes have funneled growth income to the top 140 families in the US. Now we are witnessing the cumulative efforts of these oligarchs bear fruit. Unions are meaningless, growth income flows to the wealth class, we talk about God, guns and gays in every election cycle, efforts to do away with all social programs and rig the tax codes so the middle class pays more and the wealthy pay less. I would say the Oligarchs are in control and have won. They control the courts and all branches of government....what is left? Can democracy survive now that they control the ballot box and the elections? And they certainly can control enough minds to win an election...we witness that in 2016.
    GimmeHendrix -> Arch Stanton , 15 Oct 2017 16:20
    'And Trump being the worst type of oligarch may create 'oligarchic breakdown' and bring the whole corrupt shitheap called US democracy crashing down.'

    Contradictions in terms. Its either a democracy or an oligarchy.

    GimmeHendrix -> threeoutside , 15 Oct 2017 16:18
    You suggest a determinism which is false. Brexit is a classic example where the political will of the masses acts contrary to the immediate interests of domestic capital.
    GimmeHendrix , 15 Oct 2017 16:12
    Well its just been confirmed. We live in an oligarchy. One where the notion of democracy acts as an ideological support.
    curiouswes -> hardmoney , 15 Oct 2017 16:09
    Likewise.

    Similar to Dorothy and her ruby slippers in the Wizard of Oz; she had the power all along, but didn't know it.

    Ahh, the Ruby slipper analogy! Well done! I missed it, obviously :-)

    sparx104 , 15 Oct 2017 16:07
    Someone else seems to have understood this some time ago. ..

    "'If there is hope,' wrote Winston, 'it lies in the proles.' If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within'"

    RapidSloth -> curiouswes , 15 Oct 2017 16:06

    it does show when the government is exceeding it's authority

    Except that when you look at how much power the constitution has given to the state in the past three decades the answer to the question of whenever or not US is an oligarchy is should be rather obvious....

    hardmoney -> curiouswes , 15 Oct 2017 16:00
    "...we need some way to separate fact from opinion."

    The problem is and always has been, life is not black or white, but gray. One man's fact is another man's differing opinion.

    fragglerokk , 15 Oct 2017 16:00
    Can't recommend Requiem For The American Dream highly enough, absolutely required viewing for anyone wishing to understand the mockery of democracy under which we live.
    fragglerokk -> Gamba Puirida , 15 Oct 2017 15:59
    Requiem For The American Dream also ... any adult would be extremely enlightened by watching it.
    curiouswes -> zippy200 , 15 Oct 2017 15:55

    Trouble is liberals on the one hand bang on about proletariat solidarity, yet on the other, peddle identity politics and turn a blind eye at increasingly fragmented communities.

    "The Jews, will not, replace us!" I'm so glad the "president" rebuked this blatant display of identity politics in Charlottesville.

    Elgrecoandros -> CommanderMaxil , 15 Oct 2017 15:54
    That is a semantic argument over whether or not his votes can be taken to represent his views. It is still calling for punishment of political opponents because they disagree with the political opinions of the poster.
    GusDynamite -> Skip Breitmeyer , 15 Oct 2017 15:48
    Look, I'm not fan of the left way of things but to claim they are entirely to blame is willfully ignorant of conservative and right wing failings. I can hardly expect either to see my point and accept that they're the problem, the best I can do is pause now and then I know that I am the problem as much as any and try to mind myself. If we all just took responsibility for ourselves left and right and anything in between would matter far less.
    hardmoney -> curiouswes , 15 Oct 2017 15:40
    Hi wes, hope you are doing well. Yes, the people DO have the power, but they either don't know how or choose not to use it. Similar to Dorothy and her ruby slippers in the Wizard of Oz; she had the power all along, but didn't know it.
    curiouswes -> RapidSloth , 15 Oct 2017 15:31

    There is also the tendency of treating laws like dogma and the constitution like the bible.

    I wouldn't call the constitution a bible, but it does show when the government is exceeding it's authority. In times when some are actually concerned about whether or not the USA is a oligarchy, we need some way to separate fact from opinion.

    ID7380890 , 15 Oct 2017 15:27
    Spot on article. Lots of loopy comments. Personally I find the positions the Guardian takes to be those that further the interests of our ruling elite.
    Where are the discussions about Trust Law which is nothing more than a huge tax avoiding scheme for the wealthy.

    How about the control of the legal costs the high street solicitor can claim when he wins for the average person against the badly behaved housing associations and landlords, the insurers and employers. It has forced good solicitors out of these types of litigation. The result is occurrences like Grenfell Tower. The Guradian always goes on about Legal Aid. Solicitors don't need poverty rate legal aid. They need the corrupt, the greedy and incompetent to pay the same rates per hour for the small man's lawyers when they lose as they pay for their own lawyers. This funds all the work those small high street solicitors do in investigating cases that go nowhere, and enables them to provide free advice.
    Or take the continuous false fears propaganda of those who wish to ignore the Leave vote. The majority voted for an end to cheap migrant labour driving down wages and living standards for the working population, for an end to an economy dominated by financial services and house price inflation.

    AnonForNowThanks -> Light_and_Liberty , 15 Oct 2017 15:26
    What "people?"

    Racially polarized voting does not constitute a "people." It echoes a much earlier time, when there was a slave society on American land.

    Roughly 1 in 4 active duty enlisted men and women in the US Army are black, compared with about 13.5% of the total population, hence 80%+ higher than their representation in the general population.

    You don't see a problem here?

    Dave514 -> AnonForNowThanks , 15 Oct 2017 15:25
    Not o my the two major Vet Organization but a myriad of Vet support groups.
    curiouswes -> hardmoney , 15 Oct 2017 15:24
    Hi Money!

    I think the people really do have the power. I think as long as we have the bill of rights, the power is still ours to retain or relinquish. Just because the scotus doesn't strike down unconstitutional laws like the patriot act, brady bill (gone at the moment but likely to come back), I don't think it means that we have no power. It is just that well informed people such as yourself have a difficult time informing those less informed because the media is engaged in a very effective endeavor to keep them misinformed. As you correctly pointed out in another post, people will believe anything. It is only those who really care enough to actually stop and think are what you are saying, only those will be informed despite the efforts of the media to keep them in the dark. If you can get enough people behind you, I think you could really change this. Me? I don't think the masses care enough. I think they are good people. It is just that they can't think ahead enough to see the crisis as it presents itself today. They don't feel the sense of urgency and as long as the media continues this game of deception, they will be more worried about the local football team they any existential threat until the media makes it out to be an existential threat.

    thank you for all you do and have done!

    Gamba Puirida , 15 Oct 2017 15:15
    IMO, Robert Reich's movie - Inequality for all - should be played and discussed in every class around the age of 16 in western countries.
    AnonForNowThanks -> Dave514 , 15 Oct 2017 15:14
    Which brings to mind another question: who lobbies for the homeless veterans? The oligarchs depend on the armed forces for their vast wealth and position, then discard them.
    SunwynRavenwood , 15 Oct 2017 15:13
    Then, of course, there is the guillotine.
    Arch Stanton -> newsfreak , 15 Oct 2017 15:13
    As the News International scandal showed, the British justice system / rule of law is the finest legal system that money can buy.
    Hornplayer -> vinny59er , 15 Oct 2017 15:09
    Trump the Sequel you mean?
    Dave514 -> Hornplayer , 15 Oct 2017 15:09
    The major Vet organizations do so already in the US as for the homeless Churches and other charitable organizations.
    deeaiden , 15 Oct 2017 15:06
    Conveniently forgotten in all this is the fact that most of history's most horrendous dictators and political psychopaths came from the poor. Most, if not all, revolution political movements come from the upper middle class...people who have enough money to be comfortable and afford luxuries, but not enough that they are afraid of changing things to their financial and, possibly, social detriment. The only people who really want to defend and protect the status quo are the wealthy, for obvious reasons, and the poor, who do not want to change the system--which is all they know and perhaps all they understand--but only change their position in it. I meet a lot of people who are wealthy and well-educated--these
    attributes are not necessarily reflective of each other--and a great many people who are poor. Trust me, you definitely do not want the latter group running things. "Street smarts" are great...on the street.
    GagaInGreenacres -> unclestinky , 15 Oct 2017 15:01
    And who would not tolerate unemployment. In Australia, Menzies almost lost the 1961 when unemployment nudged 3%!
    newsfreak , 15 Oct 2017 14:59
    Enlightening! The judiciary is the bastion of oligarchy and the media, for the most part, confuses and divides public opinion to ensure all remains under control -- of the oligarchs.
    GagaInGreenacres -> imipak , 15 Oct 2017 14:52
    The taxation curve is a very low order matter. The primary question is the difficulty of the first level, of getting a job where you feel you are making a valuable contribution, either because of the remuneration or because of the job satisfaction. We don't need the numbers in the masters accounts to achieve this, we can make our own numbers and give them to people who are willing to make a worthwhile contribution. Even if the masters slander them as "unworthy". Even if they are not really our sort of people.

    The main use of taxation is to prevent masters from hiring their own private armies or worse still the national army.

    threeoutside , 15 Oct 2017 14:52
    Excuse me? Who, exactly, doesn't think of "the realms of politics and economics as fused together"? Anybody under the age of about 16, from what I can see. What a dumb statement. Interesting subject here, though.
    Hornplayer -> gregwani , 15 Oct 2017 14:51
    Aristotle went further. Those with money Pay to participate and the money is used to pay those that are too poor and otherwise would not participate. Now the question is how much needs to be paid? The Duke of Westminster and the like should probably cough up a good whack so that the homeless and families at the food bank can be paid to participate.
    Arch Stanton , 15 Oct 2017 14:42
    The United States of America is an oligarchy as shown in 2008 when the banks through their control of the Federal Reserve and numerous politicians stole billions from the public purse. Then, Obama's consistent failure to deal with the criminal acts of JP Morgan and other banks shows who is in running that country. C

    Which of course is why the political mainstream has imploded and Trump was elected. If you know that the criminals in charge vote for the man they detest most even if he is an utterly preposterous showboating unprincipled liar.

    And Trump being the worst type of oligarch may create 'oligarchic breakdown' and bring the whole corrupt shitheap called US democracy crashing down.

    Brexit has split the oligarch's poodles in the U.K. Ie. Blairites & Osborne v Gove / Johnson / Tory head bangers and may consign the Conservative party to oblivion. This may lead to a genuinely left wing government that represents the many and not the few.

    vr13vr -> Dave514 , 15 Oct 2017 14:40
    One of the questions is why? The other is that even if it is in the constitution, does it mean it can never be changed? If the reality on the ground and social threats have changed over the last 200 years, so should the laws that protect us from those threats.
    GagaInGreenacres -> whitman100 , 15 Oct 2017 14:39
    Maybe, but remember that currently even a university education in economics leaves people thinking that taxes and borrowings "fund" government spending and that banks " lend on" deposits according to the "money multiplier".
    Tim2006 -> Dave514 , 15 Oct 2017 14:38
    Corruption is not. We are talking about legalized corruption ...
    Ritula Fränkel -> Light_and_Liberty , 15 Oct 2017 14:37
    What on Earth are you talking about?

    Donald Trump is the oligarchy. His disruption at the feeding trough comes from his greed: instead of understanding that oligarchs maintain stability by sharing, he remains primarily concerned with distributing privileges to his closest circle.

    Trump is not a radical anti-oligarch. He's just a simpleton oligarch who doesn't understand the rules.

    Scot Fourowls , 15 Oct 2017 14:37
    In response to the well-researched truth of this politically significant article, the propaganda reversal machine is in full force by the comments of upended sanity-and- unreality reverence toward the existentially ridiculous, dangerous and deceptive kleptocratic regime of 45; see, e.g., the comment of whatever or whoever is called in print "Light_and_Liberty."

    Maybe I'm just noting the comnent activity of bots. Anybody who is a real person and would want to know the truth about 45's vile regime needs only to read every political article of the Guardian UK US edition today.

    Enough said.

    Evangelist9 , 15 Oct 2017 14:30
    Democracy was not the norm the city states of ancient Hellas, but just one among a number of political systems. Whilst Athens had democracy in that all male citizens could vote and take part in the governing of the city (from the introduction of the system by Cleisthenes in 507 BC, and lasting for around 200 years), Sparta, for example, never had any form of democracy but two hereditary kings supported by a council of elders and the ephors. This system served the Spartans well because they were constantly on a war footing and their kings led their armies (hence the need for two kings, in case one was killed in battle, as happened with Leonidas).
    Some city states had τύραννοι , or "tyrants", though it did not have its modern connotations of oppression and cruelty. It merely meant an absolute ruler, good or bad.
    In ancient Athens, a citizen who chose not to vote was called an ιδιώτης, which gives us our modern word "idiot".

    The ancient Greeks were innovators in politics (also. of course, a Greek word) - as in almost every other sphere of life - and would not have attached the modern value terms to them that we do today. They were the greatest experimenters in history and the debt we owe to them in the modern world is incalculable.

    tjt77 -> winemaster2 , 15 Oct 2017 14:29
    "the word that is no where mentioned in the Constitution is one big hoax and the perpetuation of the same," 'One nation under God' was not mentioned either.. but nothing is static and things tend to evolve or devolve..
    There has been lot of chit chat about a 'Democratic Republic' in the 30+ yrs Ive resided in the USA... Seems to me that a more accurate description would be "Empire" given the big enforcement stick in over 5,000+ locations across the Globe added to the huge production of military weaponry that is sold to various despots every year. An Empire which, like all those before it, cannot sustain indefinitely.
    GagaInGreenacres -> maddiemot , 15 Oct 2017 14:28
    You know the masters are happy reading this sort of divisive posting. So the jocks hate the nerds, get over it. The jocks are the one's suffering the main burden of unemployment.
    Light_and_Liberty , 15 Oct 2017 14:16
    You got it totally backwards: can oligarchy survive in the face of democracy unchained.

    The election of Donald Trump was a middle finger to the establishment ruling class (aka oligarchy) and the results are self evident. We have a Federal Bureau of Investigation investigating a phony dossier and calling it Russian Collusion. We have a special counsel looking for anything to indict him with vis-a-vis that phony dossier so as to remove him from office. We have the Republican party -- the president's own party -- intentionally doing nothing to forward the agenda of the people. We have embedded federal employees who are undermining the president's agenda. We have the media and Hollywood in full propaganda mode. We have Democrats aiding and abetting rioters and protesters and call it 'The Resistance'.

    So, yes, it is interesting to see what happens when Democracy takes on Oligarchy and Oligarchy cannot accept the people's effrontery in voting for their own interests.

    Dave514 -> gregwani , 15 Oct 2017 14:16
    Lobbying is protected by the Constitution
    GagaInGreenacres -> BayardDC , 15 Oct 2017 14:14
    The taxation shenanigans only work as long as long as the economy is a zero sum or worse game. That is when austerity and targeted spending on "job creation" in the private sector means that money creation only happens for the wealthy. The first step in not taxing the stagnant wealth pools, but rather getting the fresh water of government spending heading onto the dried plains of the working class.

    Remember the masters feel far more threatened that we do, they have never experienced an honest, respectful human relationship in there lives and have no sense of self reliance what so ever. Threatening taxation as a first step to reform, is certain to get maximum response even from the "liberal" majority of the masters.

    Antoni Jaume -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 14:12
    If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, a very good bargain...
    gregwani , 15 Oct 2017 14:10
    Good article in the causes - thanks for your work - but whilst the suggestion of "creating a more economically equal society" is obviously desirable, it's not exactly a practical recommendation against the context of the rest of the article.

    Herein lies the key: "...they sustain all of this through a campaign finance and lobbying system that gives them undue influence over policy."

    So we need to specifically advocate for curtailing corporate funding of political parties, Super PACs, etc. and have election (& referendum) campaigns financed from public funds and heavily regulated private citizen donations. If you can't vote, you can't contribute. This would remove a massive barrier to widespread reform in the shape of lobbyists and political patronage whilst ensuring that elected leaders are unshackled, with the freedom to govern based on evidence-based policy and long-term planning rather than just rewarding the corporate elite who put them there.

    Matt Simonton -> blogdubdrib , 15 Oct 2017 14:06
    The book brackets a discussion of Sparta, which was an atypical oligarchy (although it regularly supported more conventional oligarchies militarily). The focus of the book is not on the Athenian oligarchies of the later fifth century, but on oligarchic rule as practiced in the wider Greek world (e.g. Corinth, the Boeotian koinon, Thasos, Chios, Ephesus). These regimes did not follow Sparta's austerity model, but neither did the Athenian oligarchies of 411 and 404. Kolkhis above is correct on Sparta that while there was a mirage of austerity around Sparta, over the course of the fifth and fourth centuries it gradually developed into a more conventional oligarchy of extreme wealth stratification. One need only turn to the reforms of Agis and Cleomenes in the third century to see how unequal it had become. Stephen Hodkinson has done excellent work on wealth inequality within Sparta.
    SN1789 , 15 Oct 2017 14:04
    "Unity might come from personal relationships, trust, voting practices, or – as is more likely in today's meritocratic era – homogeneity in culture and values from running in the same limited circles." All of these features of elite unity are under girded by shared economic interests vis-a-vis the masses.
    clshannon -> pbalrick , 15 Oct 2017 14:04
    Not true, the standards are high enough, it is the fact that kids from disfunctional families and poverty cannot reach them. So the teachers just pass them on to the next grade anyway. You end up with poorly educated adults who 'know' education is useless according to their experience raising children who continue the cycle.
    aquagreen -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 14:03

    The spoils of the Roman and British Empires mostly went to enrich the oligarchs while the vast majority of the population laboured in poverty.

    Oh please, don't spoil our nostalgic view with inconvenient facts.

    Ritula Fränkel , 15 Oct 2017 14:03
    Thank you - excellent article.

    Since ownership conventionally involves the direct enactment of control and choice upon things (at least according to the ethicist Daniel Sperling), might it not be an idea to examine the conventions upon which property law is built in the West, since property law often is held as a model for all other types?

    Sperling suggests that ownership is not absolute but instead is inferred out of a confluence of 'interests' that surround an object - I'd like to think that a cultural shift towards the recognition of the interests , rather than the ownerships , that guide policy-making could indeed challenge an oligarchy that views law-making essentially as the defence of property.

    letsbeclearaboutthis -> vinny59er , 15 Oct 2017 14:00
    People who have no effing idea of why they are there, nor what the intricacies of the process are.
    Kolkhis -> blogdubdrib , 15 Oct 2017 13:58
    Yet it did all go wrong in Sparta. This links to a splendid source on ancient Greece and Rome. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0009%3Achapter%3D6%3Asection%3D13

    Even with a ban on money - or as you say a literally iron currency, still land accumulated into ever fewer hands. This particular link is short enough to quote in full.

    Spartan women, like men, could own land privately. Ordinary coined money was deliberately banned to try to discourage the accumulation of material goods, but the ownership of land remained extremely important in Spartan society. More and more land came into the hands of women in later Spartan history because the male population declined through losses in war, especially during the Classical Age. Moreover, Spartan women with property enjoyed special status as a result of the Spartan law forbidding the division of the portion of land originally allotted to a family. This law meant that, in a family with more than one son, all the land went to the eldest son. Fathers with multiple sons therefore needed to seek out brides for their younger sons who had inherited land and property from their fathers because they had no brother surviving. Otherwise, younger sons, inheriting no land from their own family, might fall into dire poverty.

    letsbeclearaboutthis -> MrMorningDew , 15 Oct 2017 13:57
    What makes you think the idiosynchracies of democratic governance stop at the federal level?
    letsbeclearaboutthis , 15 Oct 2017 13:55
    You have neglected to point out how oligarchs manage to convince ordinary people that their best interests coincide. In the recent NZ election, the National party, representing farmers and businesspeople, used the prospect of a tax giveaway to convince people they would be better off under National. It worked because of the number of people who look no further than their own immediate interests when voting. Who's to blame for that?
    Danexmachina , 15 Oct 2017 13:48
    The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because we work for them and buy their stuff. Then someone remembers the other uses for pitchforks and torches....

    The current delay is because nobody lives on the land except corporate farmers, so the masses no longer have territory to defend except in Faecesbook.

    blogdubdrib , 15 Oct 2017 13:47
    "while he recognizes that ancient oligarchies were always drawn from the wealthy, a limitation of his work is that he focuses primarily on how oligarchs perpetuated their political power, not their economic power."

    I'm intrigued about how this might apply to Sparta which had legal limitations on wealth, an iron currency and a tightly knit ruling class which eschewed wealth in pursuit of solidarity and military discipline.

    This article, which shows no interest in the historical specifics, fair enough seems to be thinking of the oligarchic counter-currents within Athenian democracy eg the coup of 411, Plato's Republic etc - both of which incidentally were influenced by admiration for Sparta's austere Lycurgan constitution which banned wealth. After all, if you have democracy you give stupid people a vote and this lead if you do not have checks and balances against cynical populists to terrible decisions like the Sicilian Expedition, the executions in the wake of Arginusae ... contributory factors in the unnecessary defeat of 404.

    Likewise Brexit, Trump.

    trp981 , 15 Oct 2017 13:46
    "As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth." -- Aristotle, Politics

    "With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing."

    Although the neoliberal turn since the coming of the Reagan exacerbated the trend towards an oligarchic concentration of political/economic power, the seeds were planted from the very beginning. The Electoral College and the Three-Fifths Compromise in the US Constitution are both examples of democratic procedures designed to ensure the preservation of concentration of political power in the hands of economic oligarchs, and to act as barriers to the dispersal and democratization of political power. We have already seen the effect of this constitutional design twice in the new century in the disparity between the outcome of the Electoral College and the popular vote in 2000 and 2016.

    "Simonton offers another solution. He argues that democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.' Oligarchic institutions are subject to rot and collapse, as are any other kind of institution. As the oligarchs' solidarity and practices start to break down, there is an opportunity for democracy to bring government back to the people."

    The dangers of the ever-increasing extreme inequality can also be viewed from the perspective of its impact on the stability of the social formation. A decrease in stability manifests itself through an increase in the brittleness of the socioeconomic system and a decrease in its ability to respond to unforeseen shocks in a versatile manner. Although fortunately the adverse impact of extreme inequality is at present only affecting the majority of the population in the US, the effects will also be felt by the oligarchs in the long run, unless they manage to build an earth orbiting Elysium before the arrival of the long run. The dangers of extreme inequality and the instability it can cause are explored by various scholars including Acemoglu and Turchin . The latter models social instability as a time-dependent variable, and tracks its evolution over time. In the language of mathematics, this is known as a dynamical system approach. The particular variable the evolution of which he tracks is what he calls the political stress indicator, which combines the effects of three other variables (mass mobilization, elite mobilization, and state fiscal distress) and their nonlinear interaction through time. The dynamical behavior of each of these factors measures the stability of the overall socioeconomic system, and acts as a warning signal when regions of criticality and instability are breached. The formation of oligarchic interests maps into a subset of the variable "elite mobilization" in Turchin's model. According to his analysis we are at present on the cusp of a critical socioeconomic instability. The increasing instability of the neoliberal order implies the shifting of the ground beneath it. The previous givenness of the passive citizenry is becoming less so, and critical junctures might approach fast and unforeseeably.

    fritsd -> Fibonaccisequins , 15 Oct 2017 13:45
    America: the best Democracy money can buy!
    Gunsarecivilrights -> Spudnik2 , 15 Oct 2017 13:41
    I accept that what I see is the abhorrent stupidity that is socialistic and collectivist thoughts perpetuated by the progressive sheep.
    RobertsJimm , 15 Oct 2017 13:40
    According to Bill Bonner, author of Bill Bonner's Daily Reckoning, the Deep State of unelected insiders, government cronies, generals and their industrial allies, assorted lobbyists and back scratchers are the force that runs the government. Elections are theater. And the current performance is a tragic-comedy
    CinBrooklyn , 15 Oct 2017 13:38
    The US is NOT a democracy. It is a Republic. Let's start from a correct premise. The opening of this article is political dross. Am I wasting my time if I read further? Come on, Guardian.
    MrMorningDew , 15 Oct 2017 13:34
    When your colleague says the US is a democracy, you should tell him that is not correct. Point out to him that the person who finishes second in the vote count of our citizens wins the presidency and that 12% of our population controls 50% of the votes in the Senate. Gerrymandering allows a minority of votes to control the House. There is nothing democratic about the Federal Government, you need to get down to the state level to find democracy.
    hardmoney -> RapidSloth , 15 Oct 2017 13:33
    "A stark example of it is how they boast about freedom of speech."

    And as useless as protest. The people's power is a lie formulated and carried out in Oz.

    MeRaffey , 15 Oct 2017 13:32
    Time to get creative. We have become so predictable, the wealthy can keep way ahead of us.

    Fanning the flames of our asinine CULTURE WARS on effing FACEBOOK, was all the Russians needed to do to drive our presidential in their direction. The little boys who run global-tech-empires were no match for the Russians. Even now, when Trump is running the planet via TWITTER, our little tech-boys can't figure out how they lost control of their own creations.

    Asymmetric power might be the key. Right now, the wealthy own a piece of every country and everyone on earth. We have been reduced to the size of an ant and we need to start thinking, and acting like ants. Instead of feeding our money to the wealthy, we need to starve them out.

    Create disruption. Stop doing anything you normally do.

    For example, order take-out anywhere you please, but refuse to go inside restaurant chains of any kind - diners, fast-food joints or upscale joints anywhere. Enter locally owned businesses only.

    Stop putting your money in banks, stocks, bonds and other capitalist owned systems. Remove cold, hard cash from the system by putting your money in a safe deposit box at your local bank. Force the wealthy out of the closet, to try and pass laws allowing them to open your safe deposit bank.

    Stop giving your old clothes and stuff to Goodwill, the Salvation Army or thrift shops. Stop sorting your trash - plastic, glass, metal and put all of it in your trash. Create a mess so big, so fast and so pervasive it becomes a crisis - for the wealthy trash hauler kings and their politicians.

    Stay off facebook for one month. The next month, back on facebook, and out of Twitter.

    Sign up for an email account anywhere but google and then use it for all of your on-line shopping only.

    Stop being so predictable by using the same corporate chain grocery store, gas station or clothes store. Take your business to new places, try new things, get out more, mix it up, mix and match, but stop being predictable.

    Confuse and baffle. Sign on to new news sources. If you're a liberal, sign onto Brietbart. If you're a conservative, sign onto Center for Progress. Use your new email to sign up for alerts from a dozen different sources, including foreign ones.

    Do not buy anything, but go on-line and shop for shit you hate. Shop until you see ads for everything you hate, from music, to books, clothes and household stuff popping up on your computer screen like crazy.

    Lie like crazy. Go on comment boards and pretend you are an entirely different person. Pretend you are a Russian, Canadian, or German, a conservative, a liberal, a Trump hater, a Trump lover. Your task is to confuse by lying. If you are 65, post pictures of your new baby. If you are 20, post pictures of you in nursing home bed. Get creative. Have fun. Lie like crazy.

    Confuse. Baffle. Lie. STOP being predictable.

    [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

    Highly recommended!
    Republic is the policies system where leaders are obliged to leave after their maximum allowed term in office or if they lose the election (as opposed to the monarchy). the question who really select the rulers remain open, and in most cases people are not gven the right to do so -- the elite preselect candidates for which common people can vote in general elections.
    Democracy is more then that -- it is unrealistic, utopian dream of direct rule of people, without intermediation of the elite. As such it is mostly a propaganda trick. Still be can strive for more fair representation by the elite. The key question here are the mechanisms of the filtration and the rotation of the elite as well as providing a channel for people from lower strata to enter the elite. Right now universities are still serving as a path to upward mobility but this channel is more and more blocked.
    For example the US Senate is an example of almost life appointment to political position. Putting the limit on the time one can a senator might improve the situation, but it created the problem of short-termism. But taking into account to what extent senators are controlled by MIC and various other powerful lobbies it might not matter much. "It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about two-thirds of their time raising money."
    The class who holds economic power always also hold political power.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Democracy is a compromise, but it is one that virtually no one argues against. At least leaders are obliged to leave periodically. Churchill had it right when called democracy the worst form of government except for all the others. ..."
    "... So, no thanks, I prefer representative democracy where I leave governance to a representative who I can vote for or against. I don't want to ever be involved in politics and hence I don't want decision left to groups of "community activists" of which i suspect you'd be quite happy to be part of. ..."
    "... Trump is no Caesar but a Cataline. Just a sad sideshow in the slow implosion of Pax Americana. ..."
    "... I'm sorry, but this is just not possible, at least not without something close to a revolution. In every Western country we like to call a democracy, the truth is that they have only an elaborate stage set of democracy. I prefer the term "plutocrat" to "oligarch," but whatever word you choose to use, the facts of society are the same. ..."
    "... Power, no matter how it is granted, is power. And money is power, serious power. We can see this in a thousand aspects of our societies from the long-term success of someone like Harvey Weinstein in business to the many powerful lobbies which determine the direction of national policy. ..."
    "... In the United States, the last national election was between a multi-billionaire and the best financed candidate in history, a woman who burnt through somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion to lose. ..."
    "... It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about two-thirds of their time raising money. The American House of Representatives actually has call rooms were Representatives spend time every week raising money. And when I say "raising money" I don't mean the contributions which come from the likes of you or me. I mean big money from big sources of money, the only ones who really count. ..."
    "... Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures -- more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It's a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s. ..."
    "... Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business. ..."
    "... Above analysis needs to be translated into common everyday analogies. Such as Governments are gangs selling crack and guns and form co-ops with other gangs to stop killing each other. Leaders are psychopaths who kill anyone who calls them a bitch. ..."
    "... Revolutions usually occur because of economic difficulties. As long as life is relatively stable/acceptable, most people will not challenge the status quo. Their voting (if they vote at all) is reflexive/rote. ..."
    "... People will only rise up if you take away the minimum level of life for too many people. Many people are happy with the minimum. The left are deluded in they think they can gather together a lot of political protests for a life above the minimum. Many people are happy if they are simply getting by. You only have a problem when too many people are not getting by. ..."
    "... I don't like an oligarchy but I'm just not sure where this pushback will come from. Many people are destined to be the bottom of whatever system is in place. ..."
    "... We're delivered the illusion of democracy but look how quickly trump has been owned and is now going OTT in doing the bidding of the elites. ..."
    "... People that are poor and oppressed CAN'T complain. That is the whole point of living in a dictatorship. ..."
    "... Last November, a decent sized percentage of the American electorate appears to have voted for a 'politician' who they perceived to be the outsider. Presumably, their view was that there was little to differentiate between traditional republicans and democrats. ..."
    "... Thank you for a wonderful article. Does the assumption "Oligarchy bad- Democracy good" really stand up to scrutiny in all cases? Democracy has had its failures, and some benign dictators have done very well for their people. ..."
    "... Words and Technologies lead to abuse by rouge states like USA NSA and UK GCHQ spying on all citizens, Bannon type nonsense like racism is populism, white supremacy is judeo-christan values and racist Corporations like Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica pushing racist platforms like Trump and Brexit. Same Hypocrites are outraged when Russia and Iran infiltrate them back. Drone tech preceded 911 and preceded Bush war in Iraq and Afghanistan, (but were used on the sly). Now illegal wars are conducted using drones illegally claiming there is no law for drone wars. Spy Agencies and Internet censors have Sundays off. ..."
    "... Understanding the connection between wealth and power shouldn't be all that difficult. Really. More wealth = more political power, always has. Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. No one has a right to unlimited wealth accumulation. Allowing it leads to oligarchies and the death of democracies, as this article points out. ..."
    "... When George Bush Junior followed his father into the White House and became the President he demonstrated that political power remains in the hands of a few and the system is rigged. It doesn't require academics to write comparisons to Greek culture to tell us the dice is always loaded. ..."
    "... The USA is clearly a warlord power in how it behaves around the world, and anyone that sees the power of the militarised police, from Kent state to Black Lives, should recognise aspects of the Mafia type power. ..."
    "... The point is not that the laws are used by Oligarchs, but that the constitution and system of laws one has brings forth olicharchs. Europe has laws, but the countries there are largely social democracies rather than imperialist presidencies. ..."
    "... One of the finest reviews written in decades about a topic of supreme importance. Police and military officials are the brute arms and legs of the oligarchic elites. The coming attack on North Korea and Iran is the elite capturing new markets for their banking industry and manufacturing. Goldman Sachs and the investment banks are chomping at the bit for entre into southwest and east Asia. ..."
    "... The article assumes that oligarchy is inherently bad. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Victorian England where all democratically sanctioned oligarchies. They where also the most successful cultures of their day. Perhaps a democratically sanctioned oligarchy is the most successful system of governance in large populations. ..."
    "... Having been poor, I can't see the poor doing a better job of running the world. These articles never propose any workable solution to what we have now. Maybe the middle class could run things. Let's have a middle class revolution. That's more workable than 'power to the poor' which would end terribly. ..."
    "... Their most effective power play is the perpetual game of economical musical chairs. The chairs are your living wage. Each round the masters take out their profit, removing one (or more) of the chairs from the next round. Now you have the choice of a death match with your neighbors for the remaining chairs or currying favour with the masters for the removed chair. ..."
    "... Don't forget the role of the corporations and their associated 'think tanks'. In reality the USA is a corporatocracy as nicely pointed out by Bruce E. Levine in The Blog of the HUFFPOST in 2011. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html ..."
    "... "...in today's meritocratic era." This description is a myth put about by the oligarchs to justify their economic and political power. ..."
    "... The UK had a brief glimpse of Democracy, sometime between the mid 1940's and the late 1970's. ..."
    "... If you are thinking of the old Warsaw Pact countries, that was certainly an oligarchy based on party membership. ..."
    "... Perhaps all political systems will tend towards oligarchy over time, as the people with the wherewithal learn how to make the system work for them and theirs. Anarchy cannot be the solution, but what is ...? ..."
    "... So an oligarchy hiding behind a sham democracy is the best we can hope for? ..."
    "... In a system where we economic power buys political power democracy will remain a myth or at best an illusion and as the author rightly points out a catastrophic event at the level of the depression or world war is needed to begin anew. I for one am not hoping for either ..."
    "... So when the people take control and their populist leaders take charge and all their lots become better, don't they become the very oligarchs they despise? ..."
    "... With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing. ..."
    "... Industrialization will prevent any meaningful revolution so without serious changes in who is winning elections for a sustained time oligarchy in the US is here to stay. Mechanized war means control of assets rather than numerical superiority is the key to conflict and despite the millions of rifles and assault weapons out there they wont do much against drone bombers and drone tanks. ..."
    "... I was heartened by the idea that the oligarchy must necessarily rot from within as a result of its own cronyism. Much like the insider-dealing, back-stabbing, and incompetence of the present clique. ..."
    "... 'The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.' - judging by evidence from time immemorial my money is definitely on the oligarchs. ..."
    "... The combination of political and economic power is discussed in Plato's Republic. Either book 4 or 5. Whilst not a replacement for modern treatment, it is vital reading if you want to avoid the limitations of single perspectives. ..."
    "... To understand the significance of psyops and infowar against the public, you should also look at Tacitus' book on Corrupt Eloquence. Again, not a replacement but a way of seeing the broader picture. ..."
    "... The article starts with an assumption that is wrong. It seems to suggest that America can't become an oligarchy without the will of the people. That ignores the fact that America's electoral system attracts oligarchs or at least people who are happy to be puppets of oligarch to the top job. ..."
    "... Surveillance, drones, a purchased media, a mercenary govt, an internet with too much democracy and thus too many hairsplitting doctrinal differences, and increasingly effective killing devices, means the international corporate oligarchs have been in control for some time and will be for awhile more ..."
    Oct 16, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

    FREDBUDTZ -> DocAdam , 15 Oct 2017 08:49

    Yes, but the fundamental issue has always been, how do you chose the oligarch and how do you get rid of one who is clearly badly failing or abusing power?

    Democracy is a compromise, but it is one that virtually no one argues against. At least leaders are obliged to leave periodically. Churchill had it right when called democracy the worst form of government except for all the others.

    Oligarchy clearly serves some developing countries well, always assuming the oligarchs are people dedicated to doing their best for the country as a whole. And they do do that sometimes.

    Yet, we have supported nonsense like killing a Gadaffi, who gave his people good government and peace, and pitching Libya into chaos.

    All in the dishonest name of democracy from our dishonest "democratic" politicians.

    Look at Israel, always slapping itself on the back as the Mideast's "only democracy," while it consorts happily with kings and tyrants in its neighborhood and continues to hold millions of people in occupation against their will.

    DirDigIns -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 08:46

    What's your definition then?

    Representative democracy. Not democracy by the crowd. Not eternal referenda. Not local "community" groups holding a lot of power. This is simply the tyranny of small groups of ideological left and ring wing extremists who will sit for 4 hours on a wet Tuesday evening in some hall somewhere to get their way, knowing that most normal people have better things to do with their lives.

    It is the way of socialist workers and the like at University with their endless union meetings and motions, hoping to sneak through some crap the "represents" the student body of thousands on the basis of less than 100 votes. When challenged as to legitimacy the response is always "no one is prevented from getting involved".

    That I suspect is your type of democracy, as it certainly is Corbyn's.

    So, no thanks, I prefer representative democracy where I leave governance to a representative who I can vote for or against. I don't want to ever be involved in politics and hence I don't want decision left to groups of "community activists" of which i suspect you'd be quite happy to be part of.

    zippy200 , 15 Oct 2017 08:44
    Marxism 101. Trouble is liberals on the one hand bang on about proletariat solidarity, yet on the other, peddle identity politics and turn a blind eye at increasingly fragmented communities. And when the modern oligarchs come out and play they scratch their heads and blame "the stupid".
    DirDigIns -> ID059068 , 15 Oct 2017 08:40
    Your comment is the equivalent of the reply one normally gets from lefties btl if you say you don't want to be paying more tax i.e. "go to Somalia".

    The nuance that there may be something between high tax and low tax is lost on them.

    In your case, the idea that having what Beveridge proposed originally as a "safety net" of state provision rather than a lifestyle choice of full coverage of everything is lost on you, hence you suggest the choice is a binary everything or nothing.

    Yours is the ignorance of the socialist and yes, a lack of personal freedom in your thinking that I'd reject every time.

    W.a. Thomaston , 15 Oct 2017 08:37
    The first rule of oligarchic fight club: You do not talk about oligarchic fight club! Or apparently Republics? From the little golden book of how to overthrow oligarchs by overthrown oligarchs (*Minion Free Edition)
    Amanzim -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 08:37
    India has democracy, but it is suppressing Kashmiris who want to be independent. In the last decade more than 30000 people have been killed by Indian army. Why? Because they want freedom.
    Koen Van Vugt -> aeris2001x2 , 15 Oct 2017 08:36
    Trump is no Caesar but a Cataline. Just a sad sideshow in the slow implosion of Pax Americana.
    awilson5280 -> amwink , 15 Oct 2017 08:36
    Sparta used slave labor for its agricultural needs, freeing its people to train and form the backbone of its militaristic society.

    I agree that the best system for managing human affairs remains an open question. Locke and Hobbes are not done debating, and Churchill's attribution that democracy is the worst system of governance aside from everything else we've tried bears consideration as well. (If you want to discard democracy, it only seems fair that you present a viable, well thought-out replacement.)

    FREDBUDTZ , 15 Oct 2017 08:36
    "How the oligarchy wins..." "... two recent books can teach us about defending democracy from oligarchs'

    I'm sorry, but this is just not possible, at least not without something close to a revolution. In every Western country we like to call a democracy, the truth is that they have only an elaborate stage set of democracy. I prefer the term "plutocrat" to "oligarch," but whatever word you choose to use, the facts of society are the same.

    Power, no matter how it is granted, is power. And money is power, serious power. We can see this in a thousand aspects of our societies from the long-term success of someone like Harvey Weinstein in business to the many powerful lobbies which determine the direction of national policy.

    In the United States, the last national election was between a multi-billionaire and the best financed candidate in history, a woman who burnt through somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion to lose.

    It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about two-thirds of their time raising money. The American House of Representatives actually has call rooms were Representatives spend time every week raising money. And when I say "raising money" I don't mean the contributions which come from the likes of you or me. I mean big money from big sources of money, the only ones who really count.

    Look at a phenomenon like Macron in France. He came from nowhere and seems to have very limited talents, yet the plutocratic interests who backed him managed to grab the French Presidency. Former French President Sarkozy, a man who proved mostly ineffective, took huge sums from General Gaddafi to the richest woman in France, a woman rumored to not have been even fully competent at the time.

    Not only are the contributors of big money - both individuals and lobby groups - at the center of Western politics, but our very institutions are constructed to accommodate leadership which does not reflect the views of a majority. This is done in many structural ways from district gerrymandering to the nature of the "first past the post" ballots we use.

    Look at Britain's most utterly incompetent modern politician, David Cameron, the man who single-handedly created the entire Brexit mess plus engaged in a terrible lot of dishonest and brutal behavior in the Middle East. He was never popular and ruled with something over 35% of the vote. Britain's institutions accommodated that.

    In Canada, Stephen Harper, the man most Canadians likely regard as the shabbiest ever to rule the country, managed to do terrible things with about 39% of the vote.

    And everywhere, people don't vote for war, interests do, rich interests.

    timiengels , 15 Oct 2017 08:34
    We desperately need a revolution.....and to hang these oligarchs from the nearest yardarm or lamppost. Where is our Robspierre?
    Boghaunter -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 08:34
    Economist Ha Joon Chang wrote about the meteoric economic rise of South Korea. He talked about how governmental policy chose areas to heavily subsidize (like educating engineers) to stimulate growth. They were successful but Chang also talks about the "losers" left behind.

    If we only look at economics and if we assume economic growth is always a positive with no downside (slums, environmental degradation, authoritarian oppression, rulers passing laws to protect their privilege, etc.), than your premise looks sound.

    choowy , 15 Oct 2017 08:33
    '...displays of wealth that might spark *envy'. Interesting article otherwise
    ClaudiaRain01 -> Boghaunter , 15 Oct 2017 08:33
    I think being dire is an important key. Maybe it is dire in Britain for many people now. It isn't here, in Australia, just yet although people are going backwards.

    The other issue is a lack of political literacy. You have to convince people they need a revolution. Many people are poor because understanding things like politics and society is not their strong point.

    You may have a large group of people who are prime to vote for socialism but you'd have to explain to them why and convince them not just take it as a given they will. You may have an overwhelming amount of people who would benefit from socialism and you could win the revolution then they'd do something dumb like vote for Trump or Pauline Hanson. It is not a given that having victorious numbers of struggling people means socialism will be voted for.

    Fibonaccisequins , 15 Oct 2017 08:32
    Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures -- more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It's a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.

    Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

    TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 08:29
    Above analysis needs to be translated into common everyday analogies. Such as Governments are gangs selling crack and guns and form co-ops with other gangs to stop killing each other. Leaders are psychopaths who kill anyone who calls them a bitch.
    barciad -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 08:29
    You say that, but wind the clock back 80 years and they were saying the same things about tanks and airplanes. Modern day, 'urbanised feudalism' with the petrol engine instead of horses. Otherwise known as Fascism. Didn't quite work out did it...
    Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 08:29
    I don't think Jeremy Corbyn should be punished for having different political opinions to me, nor do I want Jacob Rees-Mogg punished because his opinions differ from mine, whereas you were calling for the latter to be punished for his political views.

    For most people the options for dealing with those of a different political opinion are not either 1) imprisonment or 2) confiscation of property/forced labour. Those are extremist positions.

    Boghaunter -> ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 08:27
    I find truth in your words. I used to understand the fear of "mob rule", which democracy seemed vulnerable to. Governing is complicated and, ideally, is broad-minded 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.

    Revolutions usually occur because of economic difficulties. As long as life is relatively stable/acceptable, most people will not challenge the status quo. Their voting (if they vote at all) is reflexive/rote.

    Most of the time, democracies are fundamentally guided by people who have a deeper interest in governance. As long as the engaged populace takes reasonable account of society as a whole, there will be no upheavals. When the scales tip too far we get an "acting out" that is unrestrained and chaotic and understandable.

    This is simplistic and not meant to be absolute. Just an observation.

    ClaudiaRain01 -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 08:25
    People will only rise up if you take away the minimum level of life for too many people. Many people are happy with the minimum. The left are deluded in they think they can gather together a lot of political protests for a life above the minimum. Many people are happy if they are simply getting by. You only have a problem when too many people are not getting by.
    ClaudiaRain01 -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 08:22
    In Australia plenty of people choose to live off the minimum wage. Many choose not to work full time. The state picks up after them with health care and income top ups. They are highly unlikely to make an effort to overthrow the oligarchy or the plutocracy. Why bother when you can work 30 hours a week at an easy job and get along just fine in life.

    I don't like an oligarchy but I'm just not sure where this pushback will come from. Many people are destined to be the bottom of whatever system is in place.

    Fibonaccisequins , 15 Oct 2017 08:20
    In the UK we have circa 1200 quangos controlling our lives, and look how the tories have recently abused select committee appointments. In the USA they have organisations such as the council on foreign relations which wields huge power across all areas of policy, combined with the intricacies of all the mechanisms it prevents democracy from taking shape. We're delivered the illusion of democracy but look how quickly trump has been owned and is now going OTT in doing the bidding of the elites.
    amwink , 15 Oct 2017 08:19
    By "Greece" I suspect this article means "Athens". Sparta had a different system and was not subjected to these issues. In fact, that system was superior in many ways, but apparently all has to be judged according to the rule that democracy would be the best.
    MattSpanner , 15 Oct 2017 08:16
    Classical Greece's economy ran on slave labour. Something Tories hanker after with austerity, zero-hours contracts and non-existent job security.
    aeris2001x2 , 15 Oct 2017 08:16
    Or one from the elite arises and takes power and skips democracy and devolves the US straight to tyranny, as also forewarned by the classics. Its a good job Trump never got in last year...oh fuck
    JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 08:15
    People that are poor and oppressed CAN'T complain. That is the whole point of living in a dictatorship. Should you be interested in the truth of what is happening in that empire, just navigate different news sites.

    Authorities in Xinjiang Extend Uyghur Persecution to Region's Ethnic Kyrgyz (RFA)
    Justice for Some, Notoriety for Others: Public Law Enforcement in China (DH)
    Xinjiang Seethes Under Chinese Crackdown (NYT)
    Clashes as Ethnic Evenk Herders Protest China's Grazing Ban in Inner Mongolia (RFA)
    Chinese Dissident 'Utterly Destroyed' in Detention (FB)
    China executed 2,400 people in 2013: report (AJ)
    Chinese Dissident Calls on China to Stop Persecuting His Family (VOA)

    SimonGKelly -> Churchman72 , 15 Oct 2017 08:12
    China is indeed a good example.

    What about the GOP and the Democratic parties as competing oligopolies? Last November, a decent sized percentage of the American electorate appears to have voted for a 'politician' who they perceived to be the outsider. Presumably, their view was that there was little to differentiate between traditional republicans and democrats.

    Stateless1 , 15 Oct 2017 08:12
    Gerrymandering helps get the result you want.
    https://img.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/crimes-against-geography.png&w=1484&op=resize&opt=1&filter=antialias&t=20170517
    shtove -> Slo27 , 15 Oct 2017 08:09
    Once you use the concept of class you out yourself as the oligarch's willing executioner. There's no proof that democracy can't adapt and survive, yet a catastrophist will insist it's so.
    imperium3 -> ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 08:08

    They aspire to be like the top? No, they don't. No revolution is coming because plenty on the bottom are fine if they are just getting along in life. Aspiring to be like the top would involve too much hard work for many.

    If you push the bottom too far you just end up with a correction at the next election, that's it.

    And yet the Bourbons do not still rule France, neither the Romanovs nor the Bolsheviks rule Russia, and the once-mighty Habsburgs are a distant memory.

    Of course, the reason our democracies are not supposed to go the same way is that the populace can change things themselves through elections rather than having to rise up and overthrow the whole system. But what happens when the electoral system fails? What happens if, no matter how the electorate votes, the political class thumbs its nose at them and carries on as usual?

    To take the most obvious example of democratic failure - the US - where will the American electorate go after Trump? Can we seriously expect the same people who voted for him, and undoubtedly did not get what they wanted, to flock to support some business-as-usual Democrat or oily Republican?

    ConBrio , 15 Oct 2017 08:07

    Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing.

    If there's ever been a country not ruled by oligarchy I'd like to see it.

    The United States vacillates between a sly oligarchy of the Left who use the dole as its virtue signaling to garner votes, and the Right whose use of government for self aggrandizement is more obvious.

    Indeed, any notion that the genetic impulse to self aggrandizement will change is spurious.

    As such, the only and imperfect defense, is to limit government power thus reducing the oligarchs' potential for self dealing and, more importantly, requiring frequent elections which although in the long run don't eliminate the problem, tend to engender compromise and periodic shifts in power from one faction to another.

    James Madison's article No. 10 of The Federalist elucidates the principles. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.aspof

    Churchman72 -> SimonGKelly , 15 Oct 2017 08:01
    I think today's China is a good example of what a modern oligarchy looks like- a Party structure that provides privilege through membership, but no clearly definable ideology other than consolidating power and projecting it. It is ironic that a supposedly socialist country devotes so much energy into preventing labour from organising into unions and has such massive inequality.

    Russia on the other hand is a sham democracy where the structure of democracy is in place, but thoroughly eviscerated so that it exists only to confer legitimacy on the oligarchy (with Putin and his inner circle at the core). If Putin was to die suddenly (or become incapacitated) there may be a real world example of oligarchical collapse as rival factions try to occupy the vacant centre of power. It could very well create a space in which genuine grassroots democracy could grow, but equally it could tear the country apart.

    Neither country has a history of democracy, and the rule of law isn't anywhere near as strong as in liberal western democracies, and is easily subverted. Russia particularly has a culture of political coups, as the country relies on unequal power distribution to function, making separatist movements a very real threat.

    JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:58
    They are complaining, but you can't hear them, because they are oppressed and colonized and disenfranchised. In the country, in inner Mongolia, in Turkestan, and in Tibet, and when they want to claim their rights and their family gets persecuted for a few generations. And if anyone talks about it, the Communist party threatens to not trade with you.
    imperium3 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:58
    Precisely. In a world where a handful of people could control a whole army, who's to stop that handful from assuming total control over the rest of us?

    I'm not even sure there's much that can be done to stop it, since the nations that refuse to embrace new military technology tend to get defeated by other nations that have no such qualms.

    EquilibriaJones -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:57
    Successful until people start missing 3 meals. Then the pitchforks come out.
    jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 07:57
    I was responding to a poster who called for imprisonment for those concerned. Do you think imprisonment would be more democratic?
    DocAdam , 15 Oct 2017 07:55
    Thank you for a wonderful article. Does the assumption "Oligarchy bad- Democracy good" really stand up to scrutiny in all cases? Democracy has had its failures, and some benign dictators have done very well for their people.
    ID059068 -> DirDigIns , 15 Oct 2017 07:54
    I sincerely wish you to have the same freedom to 'live freely and succeed or fail due to their own personal talents' as my grandparents had in the 20s and 30s.

    That is, the freedom to be unemployed without help for years (but with the freedom to grow what food they could in the back yard of a slum in an industrial city). The freedom to see some of their children die because there was no treatment if you were diabetic and poor. The freedom to send your 13 year old son to work with a broken foot (stamped on by one of the cart-horses he tended) because he was the only earner. The freedom to work hungry for two days until payday because bills had been paid (rent, coal) and there was no money... I could go on and on. I really hope you get to enjoy all this freedom. And please do emjoy it without a murmur of complaint because being helped by all your neighbours that make up 'the state' isn't freedom, is it?

    JosephCamilleri -> ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 07:54
    Who is 'we'? It depends where you were born.
    JosephCamilleri -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:52
    Both Greece and Rome went through quire a few multiple systems in multiple situations. It does not make sense to say they are singular political types at all.
    Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 07:51
    Considering that in another thread you called on forced labour and confiscation of private property for those you disagreed with politically, your version of 'proper democracy' would have been called 'τυραννία' by the Ancient Greeks.
    ClaudiaRain01 -> Swoll Man , 15 Oct 2017 07:50
    No, working with poor people convinced me socialism is no better. I'm not inclined to work hard and have to support people who choose to work part time and collect benefits part time as a lifestyle choice.
    imperium3 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:50
    Successful for whom? All of those were extremely unequal societies. The spoils of the Roman and British Empires mostly went to enrich the oligarchs while the vast majority of the population laboured in poverty.

    The majority was only able to prosper once the power of the oligarchs was broken, either from above (the early Roman emperors tore the old senatorial class to pieces) or from below (gradual democratic and labour reforms in Britain conceded for fear of a potential revolution).

    TheWindsOfWinter93 -> GagaInGreenacres , 15 Oct 2017 07:45
    That would work fine before the age of automation now where humans are taken out of the job scope entirely. Then it becomes a lot harder to justify on a philosophical, ethical and moral level the logic of giving money to people for doing nothing (because there's nothing left for them to do).

    You're talking about a fundamental change in the mentality that we reap what we sow, that our efforts directly correspond to the rewards and resources we gain at the end of it. I don't think that's possible. Neither is it desirable.

    unclestinky , 15 Oct 2017 07:44

    two World Wars and a Great Depression largely wiped out the holdings of the extremely wealthy

    There was also a couple of generations trained under arms and seasoned under fire. There was a mixing of classes unlike any other and enough people who would not put up with a return to the status quo.
    TheWindsOfWinter93 -> twilightegal , 15 Oct 2017 07:43
    A world war is entirely necessary. To assume that peace is inherently good for humanity as a whole in terms of population numbers, technological advancements, or political stability is ridiculous in my honest opinion. Peace represents stagnation. It relies too much on ever-convoluted webs of interdependence (like that Concert of Europe before WWI, once declared as peace for its time).

    The American revolutionaries had it right when they said that the tree of liberty regularly requires the blood of tyrants and patriots to continue flourishing.

    TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 07:41
    Big Words usages up above

    Words and Technologies lead to abuse by rouge states like USA NSA and UK GCHQ spying on all citizens, Bannon type nonsense like racism is populism, white supremacy is judeo-christan values and racist Corporations like Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica pushing racist platforms like Trump and Brexit. Same Hypocrites are outraged when Russia and Iran infiltrate them back. Drone tech preceded 911 and preceded Bush war in Iraq and Afghanistan, (but were used on the sly). Now illegal wars are conducted using drones illegally claiming there is no law for drone wars. Spy Agencies and Internet censors have Sundays off.

    TheWindsOfWinter93 -> barciad , 15 Oct 2017 07:41
    Interesting idea. So the core of a nation's military power decides what politics makes it up (dependent on who's got the most access to the power to kill). In that case the automation of war for drones and robots cannot be anything but bad news: they are the new cavalry, affordable only by the very rich and powerful and so awesome in destructive power at almost no human cost if they are destroyed that they would make the perfect enforcers for a strict feudal order.
    apacheman , 15 Oct 2017 07:39
    Understanding the connection between wealth and power shouldn't be all that difficult. Really. More wealth = more political power, always has. Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. No one has a right to unlimited wealth accumulation. Allowing it leads to oligarchies and the death of democracies, as this article points out.

    Set the cap at a reasonably high figure to reward hard work, innovation, etc. Somewhere around $5B should work. Why $5 billion? Because of the ~2K billionaires in the world, most, like 80-85% or so, have less than that amount, and it becomes a break point within the oligarchy, dividing their unity. Think of the egos involved: many of those with $1-5B would relish seeing the 200+ hyper rich brought within striking distance of equality on their level.

    Second, agree with the politicians that taxpayers know best how to spend their money.

    Change the budget process so that the politicians pass the budget, but the people decide whether or not to fund it. Establish dedicated tax payment centers so when tax time rolls around, the proposed budget is available for the citizenry to examine.

    Then allow the taxpayer to fund those parts they agree are necessary and make sense, by establishing discrete step amounts scaled to the size of the tax bill, e.g., say your tax bill came to 1582 whatevers, dollars, pounds, etc. At that size your increment might be 25 or 50, let's say 50 for argument's sake.

    That means our taxpayer could fund up to 31 different parts of the budget. To ensure that the money gets spread around, we can limit the number of allocations to any given part to 3 or 4, and close a choice when its budget request is met. Anything left over that doesn't meet the minimum step level would go into the general fund for the politicians to allocate, either topping off programs that didn't quite get their budget requests filled or funding something that didn't get sufficient funds from the public to be viable.

    Now here's were you can get voluntary revenue enhancement: allow the taxpayer to top off the leftover amount for the privilege of allocating it themselves rather than surrendering it to politicians' control. That amount wouldn't be applied against future taxes, it is payment-for-privilege. In our example the taxpayer could add 18 to the leftover 32, a choice many would make.

    Third, bring voting into the modern era: use those handy tax payment centers both to vote in local, state, and national elections (while changing the voting period from a day to a week) and to provide feedback to politicians. Whenever anything controversial comes up, like healthcare or bailouts or war, allow the citizenry to override their representative's choice of vote if a majority of voters choose to vote the other way on that particular matter.

    Fourth, establish mental standards for running for political office. Test would-be candidates to determine whether or not they are sociopaths. I'd prefer to not allow such people to hold political offices or appointments, but would accept just identifying them so voters know what they will get.

    Taken together, those steps would ensure that democracy is strong and safe from co-option by oligarchs, both directly and indirectly by providing a genuine incentive to pay attention to issues.

    TheWindsOfWinter93 -> Slo27 , 15 Oct 2017 07:36
    Indeed you're right. And to be fair, why should he? The world's spent long enough whining on about great powers like the US trying to foist their ideas of a better world by their own rules and standards on everyone else (democracy spreading anyone?), so if we are to truly put words to action then an isolationist US allowing for other powers to fill the vacuum and return the world to multipolarity cannot be seen as anything other than a good thing.
    TheWindsOfWinter93 -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 07:34
    That doesn't sound very much like China here which is used as an example of a dictatorship (more de-facto than de-jure since the Chinese president and premier only has the absolute writ of God for ten years).

    Apart from those in Hong Kong, there really isn't much of anyone in China's domestic population complaining about being oppressed, unfree, colonised, or unable to become who they can be.

    barciad -> N1LiberalElitist , 15 Oct 2017 07:31
    It really some downs to how you define the term 'Liberal'. Socially Liberal? Economically Liberal? The latter being a modern euphemism for being about as reactionary as it gets.
    philipl -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 07:28
    But that is breaking down as middle class benefits (pensions etc.) begin to disappear. There is a growing awareness , I think, that inequality is becoming extreme between the very rich and everyone else. Good article, anyway.
    JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:28
    People in dictatorships are oppressed, unfree, colonised, and unable to become who they could be. Most people want to be more than just alive.
    DirDigIns -> WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 07:27
    I'd rather describe it as socialism giving everybody endless free stuff, hence we get more and more reliant on the state and those who wish to live freely and succeed or fail due to their own personal talents see the idea of personal responsibility denuded everywhere.

    Socialists seem to think "freedom" is achieved by having the state always there in everything to back you up, to a lot of the rest of us that is most definitely not freedom at all.

    mrpukpuk , 15 Oct 2017 07:26
    We are all well divided. So the oligarchy is safe.
    Russell Sanders , 15 Oct 2017 07:24
    When George Bush Junior followed his father into the White House and became the President he demonstrated that political power remains in the hands of a few and the system is rigged. It doesn't require academics to write comparisons to Greek culture to tell us the dice is always loaded.
    JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:23
    That would depend on the quality and sophistication of the constitution. Social multi-party representative democracies with a house of review don't decay like executive presidencies do.
    JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 07:19

    "In civil oligarchies, governance is collective and enforced through laws, rather than by arms. Democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.' With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy."

    Two things.

    1. The USA is clearly a warlord power in how it behaves around the world, and anyone that sees the power of the militarised police, from Kent state to Black Lives, should recognise aspects of the Mafia type power.

    2. The point is not that the laws are used by Oligarchs, but that the constitution and system of laws one has brings forth olicharchs. Europe has laws, but the countries there are largely social democracies rather than imperialist presidencies.

    Also, I don't think anyone interested in politics does not understand that material economical structure is the basis, and ideology is just the result or sales pitch.

    Dan2017 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:18
    Unfortunately, your view is one that is becoming more prevalent, on the left and right. All about ensuring that the correct thinking people are not held back by the plebs. Ti that effect they accuse them of false consciousness by one half and being anti-business by the other.
    FranklinDRoosevelt , 15 Oct 2017 07:17
    One of the finest reviews written in decades about a topic of supreme importance. Police and military officials are the brute arms and legs of the oligarchic elites. The coming attack on North Korea and Iran is the elite capturing new markets for their banking industry and manufacturing. Goldman Sachs and the investment banks are chomping at the bit for entre into southwest and east Asia. Articles and reviews like this one is WHY I HAVE READ THE GUARDIAN FOR DECADES.
    GagaInGreenacres -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 07:16
    The government need not favour the down trodden, it need only offer a job at a living wage to anyone willing to contribute to their community. This would make us all equal enough.
    Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:15
    The article assumes that oligarchy is inherently bad. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Victorian England where all democratically sanctioned oligarchies. They where also the most successful cultures of their day. Perhaps a democratically sanctioned oligarchy is the most successful system of governance in large populations.
    ClaudiaRain01 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:15
    They aspire to be like the top? No, they don't. No revolution is coming because plenty on the bottom are fine if they are just getting along in life. Aspiring to be like the top would involve too much hard work for many.

    If you push the bottom too far you just end up with a correction at the next election, that's it.

    ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 07:13
    Having been poor, I can't see the poor doing a better job of running the world. These articles never propose any workable solution to what we have now. Maybe the middle class could run things. Let's have a middle class revolution. That's more workable than 'power to the poor' which would end terribly.
    qvideh -> YurekandTina Kulski , 15 Oct 2017 07:11
    Plutocracy!
    GagaInGreenacres , 15 Oct 2017 07:11
    Their most effective power play is the perpetual game of economical musical chairs. The chairs are your living wage. Each round the masters take out their profit, removing one (or more) of the chairs from the next round. Now you have the choice of a death match with your neighbors for the remaining chairs or currying favour with the masters for the removed chair.

    The masters need only cut out some unpopular group and tell some convenient story about how they brought it on themselves in order to get your support.

    The only way for democracy to thrive is for the community to supply a new a chair for every one taken by the masters, as was done in the post war period up till the mid seventies. Since then it has been economic musical chairs with austerity, budget constraints and irreducible unemployment as far as they eye can see.

    Slo27 -> Amanzim , 15 Oct 2017 07:09
    Isolationist Trump still intends to rule the world, he just does not want to get involved in making it better.
    Slo27 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:07

    don't they become the very oligarchs they despise?

    In America, they actually chose an oligarch to battle the oligarch, and somehow that is not how it is panning out.
    YurekandTina Kulski , 15 Oct 2017 07:06
    Don't forget the role of the corporations and their associated 'think tanks'. In reality the USA is a corporatocracy as nicely pointed out by Bruce E. Levine in The Blog of the HUFFPOST in 2011. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html
    Redredemptionist , 15 Oct 2017 07:06
    "...in today's meritocratic era." This description is a myth put about by the oligarchs to justify their economic and political power.
    Slo27 , 15 Oct 2017 07:05
    And yet, the American voters brought in Trump the oligarch, and tasked him with destroying the institutions that perpetuate oligarchy.

    Democracy will be destroyed through utter stupidity of the lower classes. They can easily be egged to see an enemy in their fellow citizens and turn to oligarchs for protection. Specifically, in the US, the white majority wants Trump to prevent a transition into whites becoming the largest minority, instead of the majority. These are their expectations and they are prepared to tolerate any outrage as long as they think he is working towards that goal.

    Gunsarecivilrights -> WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 07:05
    Rights and socialism do not belong in the same sentence. Are you drunk?
    barciad , 15 Oct 2017 07:03
    The UK had a brief glimpse of Democracy, sometime between the mid 1940's and the late 1970's. I should also add that Aristotle included a third factor. The size and nature of ones armed forces:-
    1. If the core was cavalry, then it would be a feudal monarchy (Macedon, Persia)
    2. If it was elite heavy infantry, then it would be an oligarchy (Sparta, Rome)
    3. If it was through either mass light infantry or naval based, then it would be a Democracy (Athens)

    Now consider the UK after 1945, you have a this huge 'citizen's army' that has been out in field (one way or another) for over half a decade. Add onto that the huge losses of wealth and (more importantly) the alliances that were forced upon us. There could be nothing but an effective mass popular Democracy in this country. And for the first time in its history.

    But alas, the Oligarchs bided their time and when the first sign of crisis came along, the struck. The 1970's for fucks sake, which were nothing compared to the cataclysms between 1914-1914, that same said Oligarchs created. Yet you would not think it the way those people bang on about it. Thus now, we have the 2010's, a decade that we will be warning our children about.

    With the subheading 'What happens when you forget the lessons of history'.

    SimonGKelly -> WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 06:59
    If you are thinking of the old Warsaw Pact countries, that was certainly an oligarchy based on party membership.

    However, how far are we from that in a system which guarantees that only one of two parties will end up in power? A glance across the pond shows how that is simply another form of oligarchy generating a hereditary establishment. That was HC's biggest problem.

    Perhaps all political systems will tend towards oligarchy over time, as the people with the wherewithal learn how to make the system work for them and theirs. Anarchy cannot be the solution, but what is ...?

    Redredemptionist -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 06:54
    So an oligarchy hiding behind a sham democracy is the best we can hope for?
    TheWindsOfWinter93 -> Amanzim , 15 Oct 2017 06:53
    Who cares about whether democracy or dictatorship is better. As long as the people get richer and safer and happier with their lot in life, that's all that matters. Humans don't nearly live long enough to care more than just staying alive and bettering our own lot in life.
    twilightegal , 15 Oct 2017 06:51
    In a system where we economic power buys political power democracy will remain a myth or at best an illusion and as the author rightly points out a catastrophic event at the level of the depression or world war is needed to begin anew. I for one am not hoping for either
    NotSoLittleMouse , 15 Oct 2017 06:49
    There is also an economic minimum the population needs to be at. Dividing the classes only goes so far.

    There's an argument on the oligarch needing the masses to finance their wealth, especially through utilities and monopolies (privately run NHS by token choice of companies), but it almost like the oligarchs don't need the masses anymore and can defend their wealth via stock exchange and governmental debts.

    I would say that the biggest reason for the success of the oligarchs is making security, defined and framed by them, more important for the mass than freedom.

    TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 06:49
    So when the people take control and their populist leaders take charge and all their lots become better, don't they become the very oligarchs they despise?

    What seems to be missing is recognizing the fact that very often in human society those on the bottom aspire to be like the top, even if they disagree with their personalities they don't disagree with their idea of prosperity and power. So it's going to be endlessly cyclical. The people take power and become oligarchs in their own right. Then someone has to take over on the bottom and then it all starts again.

    redleader , 15 Oct 2017 06:48

    With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing.

    Aristotle would have argued that countries are oligarchies when they have oligarchical constitutions.

    Amanzim , 15 Oct 2017 06:47
    Democracy works much better when all have economic prosperity. It should also look after the minorities by giving them equal rights and opportunities. I see democracy in India and look up to how it has remained a free country. But there are more than 300 million people in India who are so poor that they cannot afford much in life, most of them live on roads. China on the other hand is a dictatorship, but has reduced poverty of more than 400 million people in the last few decades. Which path should others follow?

    America under Trump is making the country isolationist. As Economist wrote so well: "The world does not want an isolationist United States or a dictatorship in China. Alas, it may get both."

    Andy Roberts , 15 Oct 2017 06:43
    Industrialization will prevent any meaningful revolution so without serious changes in who is winning elections for a sustained time oligarchy in the US is here to stay. Mechanized war means control of assets rather than numerical superiority is the key to conflict and despite the millions of rifles and assault weapons out there they wont do much against drone bombers and drone tanks.
    kizbot , 15 Oct 2017 06:41
    in Greece the oligarchs rule through corruption. Everyone is tainted so the system cannot be overthrown without going down with it.
    mill1806 , 15 Oct 2017 06:40
    I was heartened by the idea that the oligarchy must necessarily rot from within as a result of its own cronyism. Much like the insider-dealing, back-stabbing, and incompetence of the present clique.
    Keith Fraser -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 06:37
    Not all measures aimed at improving equality involve giving extra privileges to currently disadvantaged groups - one can remove privileges/other advantages from groups which are doing more than OK, like curtailing legal tax-dodges which are only of use/available to the very wealthy. One can also remove barriers which (deliberately or not) impact people unequally, such as voter-suppression tricks.

    This set of images is a very simplistic but helpful way of explaining the difference between different ways to deal with inequality:

    https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*owl5RUCkVYPzZi9tuyC54Q.jpeg

    N1LiberalElitist -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 06:37
    If you think that's "contemporary bourgeois liberal strategy" then the oligarchs are winning. They've told you the woes of the world are all the fault of the liberal middle classes, and you've believed them.
    abugaafar , 15 Oct 2017 06:35

    The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown

    or demagoguery.

    Nada89 , 15 Oct 2017 06:33
    'The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.' - judging by evidence from time immemorial my money is definitely on the oligarchs.
    jazzdrum , 15 Oct 2017 06:32
    For me , this film says it all and clearly too. https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick /
    imipak , 15 Oct 2017 06:30
    The combination of political and economic power is discussed in Plato's Republic. Either book 4 or 5. Whilst not a replacement for modern treatment, it is vital reading if you want to avoid the limitations of single perspectives.

    To understand the significance of psyops and infowar against the public, you should also look at Tacitus' book on Corrupt Eloquence. Again, not a replacement but a way of seeing the broader picture.

    Remember, we wouldn't be in this mess if we had a clear picture, but we have a different perspective to these past writers. Philosophers and elephants. You've got to combine the visions and weight them correctly.

    Hibernica , 15 Oct 2017 06:30
    The article starts with an assumption that is wrong. It seems to suggest that America can't become an oligarchy without the will of the people. That ignores the fact that America's electoral system attracts oligarchs or at least people who are happy to be puppets of oligarch to the top job.

    If Trump hadn't been elected Hillary Clinton would now be President. More intelligent certainly and less likely to destroy the country but still backed by countless very wealthy people who would have been expecting payback for their support.

    So rather than ask how America can avoid becoming an oligarchy I'd be asking if there was ever a time when it wasn't an oligarchy.

    ValuedCustomer -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 06:30
    In fact the whole article is fantastic, I've been relying on instinct and Michels' (accurate but primitive) Iron Law of Oligarchy for this stuff.
    WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 06:29
    What about the oligarchy of Socialism where giving people too many rights neutralises everything to a standstill?
    ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 06:25
    While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors. Oligarchs in ancient Greece thus used a combination of coercion and co-optation to keep democracy at bay. They gave rewards to informants and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government.

    These collaborators legitimized the regime and gave oligarchs beachheads into the people. In addition, oligarchs controlled public spaces and livelihoods to prevent the people from organizing.

    This is the clearest explanation of contemporary bourgeois liberal strategy I've ever seen.

    Bravo!

    SameTrip , 15 Oct 2017 06:23

    The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.

    Surveillance, drones, a purchased media, a mercenary govt, an internet with too much democracy and thus too many hairsplitting doctrinal differences, and increasingly effective killing devices, means the international corporate oligarchs have been in control for some time and will be for awhile more
    Tenthred , 15 Oct 2017 06:23

    democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown."

    Yes, but I'm not sure I see why that is to do with institutional decay - except if that means that the arrangements for bribing, threatening and manipulating the populace break down, in which case it just pushes the query back to why that should happen.

    Which brings us to consent and to capacity. If the state has the capacity to ensure that citizens do OK then it will gain their consent. If not, not.

    So far so simple for the ancient Greeks. Not so simple for us, now, because one of the institutional structures controlled by the oligarchy is the one that manufactures and maintains consent.

    That's why, if we have arrived at oligarchy, we will not escape as simply as the city states of ancient Greece - and perhaps cannot escape it at all.

    Bransby -> Commem , 15 Oct 2017 06:21
    When I was an ancient Greek I was fantastic. Since the financial crisis and austerity cuts I've found it hard to be as great as before
    jessthecrip -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 06:21
    Ooops - 'sew disunity in the ruling class'
    jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 06:20
    So those of us who want proper democracy need to try and sew in the ruling class, just as they have long encouraged disunity amongst us plebs, is that it? Perhaps one advantage (of few that I can see) of brexit is it's exposing significant disunity in the Tory party.
    Commem , 15 Oct 2017 06:19
    Nothing new then. Who said " I don't care who makes the decisions as long as I write the Agenda and the Minutes. Information control is key. We live in a Alice in Wonderland world of spin.
    ethelbrose , 15 Oct 2017 06:17
    If only we could shut off roads in cities to traffic we could be so much more powerful as a mob...
    TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 06:16
    Very interesting and informative. However...

    one solution is creating a more economically equal society

    If one were to look at this equality problem rationally and logically, then any government policy aimed at making people equal would actually amount to government treating people very unequally.

    Sort of like because people are unequal they should be treated unequally in order to make them equal. So in this sense the very idea of social justice is either irrational or else meaningless.

    Differences in vocation, gifts, interests, locations and aspirations contribute to making people unequal. Socialism is a provenly unworkable myth.

    [Oct 16, 2017] C Wright Mills called the US state a plutocracy all fifty years ago

    Notable quotes:
    "... Indeed; smart, intelligent, "clever" folks in no way confers any degree of civility on their "vested" interests. Manipulation and control are suitably useful tools for their purposes. ..."
    "... The media is not a major player in running the country, contrary to what much of the right has been brainwashed to believe. It's a tool of the elite. A hammer is also a very useful tool but it doesn't do much to determine what the carpenter builds. ..."
    "... We convinced ourselves that our form of oligarchy was somehow "better" than other forms, when in fact, the end game was always the same..concentrating the power in as few hands as possible. Denial was the name of the game here in the US. ..."
    "... They learned their lessons well after the 60's, the last time the people really raised up against the machine, so they have given us all the; junk food at a low cost, all the TV and mindless sexually charged entertainment, all the "debt wealth", a simple minded, unread, semi-literate, beer swilling fool could ever ask for. And we all gladly gobble it up and follow the crowd, for who wants to be on the outside looking in... ..."
    "... There is always a ruling elite because power is the wellspring of all human actions. There is also a certain moral consciousness that many people argue is innate in human nature, and that consciousness is fairness. The fairness instinct survives where ordinary human sympathy may fail. Based upon this basic morality of fairness those of us who are willing to take risks in the interest of fairness need to prune and tend the ruling elites as soon as possible. We proles need to act together. ..."
    "... Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. ..."
    "... With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations. ..."
    "... Dominance of oligarchic political power, through neoliberalism, over the last four decades has effectively put such policies out of bounds. ..."
    "... The last one I recall was an article by Kenan Malik on identity politics . For what exists in this country, the UK, I have previously used the term "oligarchy by profession" ... meaning a pool of the usually upper half of the middle class, or a group in whom that group is disproportionally represented, who not only likely have a select education but who go on to become part of certain professions - accountants, lawyers, journalists, bankers, doctors etc. ... and of course, politicians tend to be drawn from these. ..."
    "... Apparently we're so distracted that we're also all genuinely shocked that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia and extreme sexual harassment as though it's some revelation that we didn't know already, but that's another conversation. ..."
    "... If we're all so distracted then it's not difficult for our political 'representatives' -- I use that word very tentatively because they barely ever do -- to subject themselves to the oligarchs for a few scraps more than we have ourselves. ..."
    "... Limiting govt still leaves economic power and the tendency towards monopoly untouched. ..."
    "... Culture is the key, much more than any genetic impulse, which is practically meaningless and so explains nothing. ..."
    "... As wealth defense is so important to oligarchs, there is a constant pressure to cheat and break the law. One solution therefore is to apply the law but also to construct legislation with specific principles in mind. If the point of tax legislation is to contribute your share towards the general good then those who avoid and evade tax would be guilty of a technical breach but also a breach of the principle. ..."
    "... However our laws are skewed to allowing the wealthy to defend their wealth and so a party of the people is always needed. Always. ..."
    Oct 16, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

    cognitivedissonance1 , 15 Oct 2017 13:25

    Nothing new here, C Wright Mills, the US state as a plutocracy , government by the few , said it all fifty years ago , especially the economic oligarchs

    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/mills_critique.html

    http://plutocratsandplutocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-power-elite.html

    imipak -> NoBets , 15 Oct 2017 13:21
    I would again point to Plato. Those whose affluence exceeds the critical threshold stagnate. They have no need to work, no need to hold anything as valuable, they contribute nothing and take everything.

    What is the point in being so rich? There's nothing you can gain from it, other than bank account pinball.

    The purpose of being rich is to enable you. It is the only purpose. Once you are fully enabled, money has no value.

    Those who are poor can't afford the tools to work well, the education/training needed, anything by which they could better themselves and be upwardly mobile.

    There are some who are poor by choice. Voluntary hermits are common enough. They're not included in here because they're self-sufficient and have the tools they need so fall out of scope.

    The middle band, where prone work the best, function the best, are mentally and physically the best, is very very big. Nothing stops you cramming society into there because they've plenty of room to stretch out.

    But people always want to improve. No big. Make tax follow a curve, so that you always improve but the game gets harder not easier. Would you play a computer game where level 100 was easier than level 1? No, you'd find it boring. As long as it's a single curve, nobody gets penalized.

    You now get to play forever, level billion is better than level million is better than level thousand, but it's asymptotic so infinite improvement never breaks outside the bounds.

    "Asymptotic" is a word that meets your objection AND my rebuttal. You do not have to have either a constant, infinity or hard ceilings. Leave straight lines to geometers and enter the world of inflection points.

    Viddyvideo , 15 Oct 2017 13:19
    Elites exist the world over -- East, West, North and South. Question is how do we create a world where power is shared -- Plato and his Guardians perhaps or are we doomed to be ruled by elites until the end of time?
    handygranny -> R Zwarich , 15 Oct 2017 13:14
    Indeed; smart, intelligent, "clever" folks in no way confers any degree of civility on their "vested" interests. Manipulation and control are suitably useful tools for their purposes.
    memo10 -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 13:11

    Yet most of the media is resolutely "liberal" or leftist How do you explain that?

    The media is not a major player in running the country, contrary to what much of the right has been brainwashed to believe. It's a tool of the elite. A hammer is also a very useful tool but it doesn't do much to determine what the carpenter builds.

    RecantedYank -> mjmizera , 15 Oct 2017 13:09
    Rapid is still quite right... We convinced ourselves that our form of oligarchy was somehow "better" than other forms, when in fact, the end game was always the same..concentrating the power in as few hands as possible. Denial was the name of the game here in the US.
    CommanderMaxil -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 13:08
    jessthecrip's comment was clearly not calling for JRM to be imprisoned or in any way punished for his views , but for his votes . Specifically his votes in the House of commons to support benefit cuts for disability claimants. Admittedly that a pretty extreme position from my point of view, but nonetheless you are misrepresentating what was said, whether deliberately or because you genuinely have not understood only you can know
    Spudnik2 -> Gunsarecivilrights , 15 Oct 2017 13:05
    More people should simply look up from time to time and quit living in fantasy books. The whole and real truth is not written in a book its all around you if you are willing to except what you see.
    vinny59er , 15 Oct 2017 13:04
    Form a government in same way we select juries. No entrenchment of the same old guard, no lobbyists,no elite, no vested interests.Just people like you,and you.People like your children.People like your parents.People like your neighbors
    mjmizera -> RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 13:03
    The industrial-military complex of the 50-70s didn't just disappear, but morphed into today's structures.
    mjmizera -> voogdy , 15 Oct 2017 13:00
    Not anymore, as conspiracy nuts are now serving their new masters, the altRight. They joined the enemy.
    theseligsussex -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 12:59
    Not really driven by the oligarch, more looted. And there's normally 1 greedy bugger, Sulla or Pompey, who has to have it all and upsets the apple cart, and then you get Augustus.
    mjmizera -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 12:58
    There is never the right far enough that one can't be to the left of.
    mjmizera -> RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:55
    All the good/bad labels lose their meaning without a qualifier - for whom.
    winemaster2 , 15 Oct 2017 12:54
    The US and it being a democracy, the word that is no where mentioned in the Constitution is one big hoax and the perpetuation of the same, where the missed people in this country are further conned by the elite and the rich. Then on top of it all we f or sure not practice what we preach. To that end our political system with two senators from each of 50 states m irrespective to the population is lot to be desired in terms of any real democratic process, let alone equality in representation. To add insult to injury, the US House of Representatives where Congressional Districts are gerrymandered just about every two years, is even worst. Just as the US Congress in which over 90% of the people have no confidence.
    sejong -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 12:50
    Yet most of the media is resolutely "liberal" or leftist How do you explain that?

    Liberal MSM has been emasculated. It doesn't know it's dead. It doesn't move any needles. It just brays on in ineffective anti-Trump outrage and one identity politics issue after another.

    Rightwing media is king in USA.

    makingalist , 15 Oct 2017 12:47
    One way they get away with it is by having their own separate education system. It's high time private schools were closed down.
    handygranny -> ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 12:47
    Who was it again who said he loves the undereducated and uninformed during the campaign season of 2016?
    laerteg -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 12:44
    Yes- the demonization of liberalism on the right and the turning away from liberalism on the left *has* paved the way for oligarchy.

    Divide and conquer, as usual, is working.

    Shrimpandgrits -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 12:44
    Slavery -- chattel slavery -- was an element.

    Socialist, mass slavery was not.

    Leon Sphinx , 15 Oct 2017 12:41
    The House of Lords in the U.K. and the Senate in the US were originally there to prevent poor people - always the majority - from voting to take away wealth and lands from the rich. Basically, if such a vote was cast, the HoL and Senate - filled with the elites of society - had the power to block it.
    ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 12:41
    This is a fascinating dissection of how the "leftist/liberal" media was completely disrupted by Trump. It is a long read and quite difficult (so not likely to appeal to most of the knee-jerk commentators) but, whatever your politics it is well worth a look
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502 /
    Laurence Bury , 15 Oct 2017 12:41
    The human (and probably animal) world is made up of oligarchies that deal with each other. History has shown that only lone soldiers can upset established orders: Alexander, Napoleon, Lenin, Castro and Bin Laden come to mind.
    laerteg -> Hibernica , 15 Oct 2017 12:40
    I agree with the article's premise. We have allowed the oligarchs to consolidate power.

    Why? Because Americans revere wealth and power. We have bought into the capitalist model hook, line, and sinker. We willingly elect candidates and sign on to policies that allow oligarchs to consolidate their power, increase their wealth and income inequality, pomote greed and selfishness, and undermine democracy - the power of the people.

    We have been busy electing agents of oligarchy to Congress since 1980. Buying ino the "small government" con, the "taxes are theft" con, "the business is overregulated" con, the "corporations are the job creators" con and its twin the "government never created jobs" con, the anti-union con, etc, etc, etc.

    Our political system would be a lot more representative of the people if the people would get off their butts and start participating in it. Our electoral ststem is open to anyone who wants to participate.

    But who and how many participate any more?

    When the people create a vacuum with their apathy and cynicism, the oligarchs fill it with their greed.

    Oligarchs will always be attracted to power, no matter what system is in place. What's needed to minimize their ability to entrench themselves is vigilance in defending our institutions against corruption.

    And vigilance is something that the American people seem to have less and less of every day.

    Matt Quinn , 15 Oct 2017 12:40
    Maximise aggregate happiness as John Nash suggested. Cooperation beats competition in almost every sphere. Uniting the 99% will happen after the 1% have brought civilisation to a standstill and a billion people starve.
    vinny59er , 15 Oct 2017 12:38
    The biggest impediment to true and real democracy is the existence of political parties.
    RapidSloth -> RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:27
    Denial is a powerful mental mechanism, that and also people tend to associate oligarchy with brutal, straight forwards autocratic rule.
    US has a very sophisticated socio-political system that has isolated the elite and the common man through many filters rather than one solid brick wall - so people dont see it. This paired with large enough populations who are cretinous enough to actually vote for somebody like Trump or give a second term to the likes of G.W Bush makes fooling extremely easy.

    There is also the tendency of treating laws like dogma and the constitution like the bible. A stark example of it is how they boast about freedom of speech. Everybody is keen to point out that one can publicly criticize politicians without fear of prosecution but nobody seems to notice how useless that speech is and how effectively the political elite shelters itself from negative opinion and is able to proceed against the public will. I find it quite fascinating.

    RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:20
    ALL oligarchies are bad...they just function from a different starting point.
    In the US, we have an oligarchy based on wealth,who then uses their money to buy the political animals.
    In Communist countries, you had a political oligarchy, who used their political powers to corner the wealth.
    And in religious oligarchies you have a few selected "high priests" using religious fervor/special communication lines with whatever deity, to capture both wealth and politics.

    None of these are preferable over the other as they all concentrate power into the hands of the few (1-2%), against the interests of the many.

    virgenskamikazes , 15 Oct 2017 12:20
    The fact is Western Democracy (democratic capitalism) is not and was never a true democracy.

    Historians from at least 300 years from now, when studying our historical time, will state our system was capitalism, whose political system was plutocracy -- the rule of the capitalist class from behind the curtains, through puppet governors.

    Sure, the same historians will, through archaeological evidence, state, correctly, that we called and considered ourselves to live in a democracy. But they will also find evidence that this claim was always contested by contemporaries. Emperor Augustus restored the façade of the Republic and called himself princeps instead of king, and, officially, Rome was still a Republic until the time of Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian (maybe the first emperor to openly consider himself a monarch) -- it doesn't fool today's historians, and it seems it didn't fool the Roman people also.

    sejong , 15 Oct 2017 12:15
    Oligarchy in USA is secure. For a generation, it has leveraged rightwing media to get unquestioning support from white America based on aggrieved truculence toward the liberal, the brown, and the black. And that was pre-Trump.

    Now Trump rampages against the very symbol of the grievance: Obama.

    It's midnight in the world's leading third world country

    voogdy , 15 Oct 2017 12:10
    Anyone who's been accusing united states of being an oligarchy so far was branded as a conspiracy nut. So does this article rehabilitates them and confirms their assertions?
    j. von Hettlingen , 15 Oct 2017 12:07
    In ancient Greece: "While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors." Today the oligarchs aren't always united, because they see each other as rivals. But they have nothing against dividing and weakening the people in order to prevent them from rising up to "their oppressors."
    Mass indoctrination is the answer. Oligarchs around the world seek to build up a media empire to brainwash a gullible public and sow discord in the society. The most notorious members of a civil oligarchy in the West are Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch. Like oligarchs in ancient Greece, their modern counterparts need democratic support to legitimise their goals. And they support candidates in elections who will do their bidding once in office.
    Oligarchy and plutocracy will continue to rule America, because the worship of money is a popular faith. As long as an individual is well off, he/she sees little incentive to help improve social equality. A revolution will only be possible if a critical mass is behind it.
    PeterlooSunset -> maddiemot , 15 Oct 2017 12:06
    The current US education system was put in place by the oligarch foundations of the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Guggenheims . It exists to keep the majority of the citizenry misinformed, thus docile workers and passive consumers.
    ID3924525 -> 37Dionysos , 15 Oct 2017 12:05
    Sounds about right - a least some, a very small minority, realise they're being suckered - the overwhelming majority die pig ignorant, whether they believe they've made it or live in a trailer park.
    lasos2222 , 15 Oct 2017 12:03
    it's very rare that an article in the Guardian doesn't have an obvious agenda. Simple click bait stuff. This article is different, and worthwhile reading. Excellent.
    RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:02
    I am only surprised that anyone would still be in the dark about whether or not the US is an oligarchy. It's been obvious now for at least the past three-four decades.
    RapidSloth , 15 Oct 2017 12:01
    If the general public opposes rule-by-economic-elites, yep sure... too elections held in the last two decades contradict that statement.
    37Dionysos -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 12:01
    Yep---for where very few have very much and most have nothing, you have a pressure-cooker. The property-police must indeed grow in number and brutality.
    37Dionysos -> ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 11:58
    And the other half of it is what Ben Franklin warned about, "the corruption of the people." The gangsters really sense and know how to play people against themselves---arousing appetites, appealing to short-term pleasure, to short-term feel-good thinking and acts, and to greed and lust for seemingly easy power. When you realize you're had, it's too late: "In every transaction, there's a sucker. If you're wondering who that is, it's you."
    Feindbild -> PSmd , 15 Oct 2017 11:55
    Yep sure. The 'big white kid' pritecting the brown kid does tend to be working class or middle class Jewish, and indeed, more likely to be socialist than liberal (in my experience).

    I wouldn't limit credit for this kind of thing to any particular ethnicity. But I will say that most major successful reform 'crusades' of modern Western history were inspired by Christian ideals, and often led by Christian clergy, including the anti-slavery Abolition movement in 19th-century America, the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and '60s, and the anti-Communist revolutions in 1980's Eastern Central Europe. Even in the anti-Apartheid movement, the churches played a leading role, personified, of course, by Bishop Tutu.

    MTorrespico -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:52
    Correct, because that would be too easy . . . for 'Muricans, because Other people might benefit, and because it is too, too logical a solution for the Turd World USA.
    37Dionysos , 15 Oct 2017 11:51
    In the Oxford English Dictionary you find that "profit" and "advantage" are close cousins etymologically. Makes sense, since "profit" (the word for value you did not put into an exchange) creates "advantage"---and then you use advantages to give even less and take even more profit. Round and round she goes, and there's no bottom. "Advantage" of course is also inherently relative to somebody else's "DIS-advantage": hence our planet full of "disadvantaged" working people.
    OldTrombone -> rg12345 , 15 Oct 2017 11:50
    No, I think the Democrats are the ones most successful at diverting the people from their own power in favor of the banks. The Republicans are far less successful by their own control, instead benefitting only from luck such as Wasserman-Schultz denying Elizabeth Warren from her rightful place in the Oval Office. Sanders was the consolation candidate for Warren voters. Warren would have beaten Trump 50-nil.
    MTorrespico -> Nash25 , 15 Oct 2017 11:50
    Correct. Two equal evils from the same nest-egg, a political party with two right-wings. At the least, the public know why the First Nazi of Great America has an aura of flies.
    name1 -> Skip Breitmeyer , 15 Oct 2017 11:46
    Divisions or hijacking? I suspect the latter.
    PeterlooSunset , 15 Oct 2017 11:39

    a colleague of mine asked if America was really at risk of becoming an oligarchy. Our political system, he said, is a democracy. If the people don't want to be run by wealthy elites, we can just vote them out.

    Thanks for the cracking joke. That was hilariously funny.

    teamofrivals , 15 Oct 2017 11:38
    There's a term on everything and a rhythm to all things and its an impertinence to think that any political system lasts forever for our security.
    brianBT , 15 Oct 2017 11:34
    full and transparent disclosure of all finical and gift transactions between elected official and anyone not in govt.. this include "payments" to family, friends their charities.. etc.. if you cant see the lie no one fight to have the laws and rules changed... additionally lobbyist must no longer be allowed to have the type of closed door access to our leaders.. all these conversations must be moderated or flat out banned and a new form of communication is developed.... put it this way I have never been able to get a meeting with my leading politician yet big business can at almost any time.. I'm glad this issues is being more openly discussed.. we need more of the same
    ID3924525 -> ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 11:32
    Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto , indentified this in his concept, "False Consciousness", and Orwell, taking Stalinism to exemplify it, points to the same in Animal Farm , though I bet they weren't the first, and hope they won't be the last.
    OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:31
    Machiavelli was right, when you need political favors to get to the top, then you will always owe the favor-givers when you get there. Machiavelli also said this:

    Sortition works!

    When the most powerful person has literally zero interest in the outcome, they will defer to moral utilitarianism every time. Ask Canada's John Ralton Saul "The Unconcious Civilization" and Australia's Ricky Muir from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party [seriously] who scuppered Aussie right-wingers from bringing US-style education-loans to rent-seek our economy to death.

    laerteg , 15 Oct 2017 11:29
    The problem is that today's so-called "populists" have been so propagandized into despising the liberalism that could fight the oligarchs, and buying into the very policies and philosophies that allow the oligarchs to consolidate their power (endless tax cuts, undermined government, deregulation, big money in politics, destruction of unions, etc, etc.) that they play right into their hands.

    They've mistaken a demagogue for a man of the people and continue to cheer on the dismantling of the checks on oligarchy that our system provides.

    This country is in a world of hurt and those who should be exercizing their democratic power to diminish the power of the oligarchs are busy dismantling it, thanks to decades of right wing media propaganda.

    All I see is more oligarchy, more autoctacy, and less power to the people. We just keep sticking it to ourselves.

    Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 11:28
    I literally copy pasted the comments in order, how have I twisted anything?

    The person complained about some reaction to Rees-Mogg for having different political views being over the top and you promptly justified their claim.

    OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:25
    Capitalist oligarchies = bad, right?

    So... communism, then, right?

    It's time for SORTITION

    When anyone could instantly become president, then everyone has to be educated as much as possible. Right? Hey classical policy scholars, sortition worked in Ancient Greece too! As well as everywhere else ever since. Ever heard of court juries?

    ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 11:22
    Divide and rule - the oldest trick in the book, and incredibly easy, as long as people are kept ignorant by propaganda (currently known as The Media) and education.
    rg12345 -> Rainborough , 15 Oct 2017 11:21
    Many (most?) Of us do understand it, that's why we're opposed to Citizens United, whereas the Republicans are for it.
    Nash25 , 15 Oct 2017 11:20
    Hillary Clinton lost because the working class (correctly) perceived her to be a supporter of oligarchy in the USA. Her ties to Wall Street, corporate power, and the upper class were too obvious.

    Yes, Trump fooled many voters into believing that he was populist, but their perception of Clinton was still accurate.

    If the Democratic party leaders had chosen Sanders as their candidate, they would have won the election. But the "Democratic" party leaders (ironically) feared what he offered: real democracy.

    jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 11:19
    You are an expert twister and no mistake. I can only salute you
    SoxMcCarthy -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 11:18
    "The Bad Hayek emerged when he aimed to convert a wider public. Then, as often happens, he tended to overreach, and to suggest more than he had legitimately argued. The Road to Serfdom was a popular success but was not a good book. Leaving aside the irrelevant extremes, or even including them, it would be perverse to read the history, as of 1944 or as of now, as suggesting that the standard regulatory interventions in the economy have any inherent tendency to snowball into "serfdom." The correlations often run the other way. Sixty-five years later, Hayek's implicit prediction is a failure, rather like Marx's forecast of the coming "immiserization of the working class.""
    fivefeetfour , 15 Oct 2017 11:18
    Lenin has written that politics is a concentrated economy more than a century ago.
    rg12345 -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:16
    Do you think Democrats are the only ones trying to consolidate wealth and power? You must have missed the part about keeping people divided.
    Lafcadio1944 , 15 Oct 2017 11:15
    This of course is a simplified version and can't really touch on everything, however he glaringly leaves out the deliberate human suffering results from the oligarchy protecting its wealth and aggressively taking over ever more markets. Yes, of course, what today is called "alignment of interests" among the oligarchy is necessary but that alone is not enough they mus also be ruthless beyond that of others. Nothing stands in the way of profits nothing stands in the way of ever greater control. The oligarchy has decided that nature itself is just another obstacle profit making - there is no room for empathy in the world of the oligarchy poverty suffering from curable disease mutilation from bombs are acceptable external consequences to their obsessive accumulation of wealth.

    The real reason the oligarchy wins is because they are willing to be ruthless in the extreme and society rewards ruthlessness and ridicules the empathetic.

    Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 11:14
    "Perhaps the OP was proposing prison for JRM for expressing a viewpoint..."

    Nobody was proposing that, it was hyperbole from rjm2017.

    Well it was hyperbole until your comment calling on punishment for those with different political views.

    R Zwarich -> Kay Nixon , 15 Oct 2017 11:14
    This may be true, they often seem so blinded by their raw greed that their powers of reason become dysfunctional. I don't think, however, that the stupid things they do to slake their greed means that they are stupid. When the chips are down, they are capable of bringing their considerable powers of reason to bear.

    However stupid or smart they might be, we surely must realize that they have been at least smart enough to gain total ownership and control of all our mass media. They use this tool, the most powerful tool of social control that has ever existed, with consummate skill in pursuit of their agenda(s).

    If you look at the overall content of our mass media, you can see an impressive level of 'mind' at work, 'behind the curtain'. This 'mind' is constantly manipulating our consciousness, using very highly sophisticated, highly skilled techniques.Their understanding of human psychology, and their ability to manipulate us using our most basic appetites and desires, is characterized by true genius, even ig that genius is diabolical in its designs.

    'They' choose what movies get made. Which TV shows are produced. Which songs get airplay. Which social and political issues are sensationalized and which are buried.

    Most of the citizens of our ostensible 'democracy' have been 'trained', just as any animals are trained to any behavior, to be 'consumers' rather than 'citizens'. We are well trained by an omnipresent mass media that assaults us constantly. In any direction that we turn our gaze, or our attention, 'they' are there, to direct our thoughts as they think serves their purposes.

    I sure wouldn't sell these people's intelligence short. They may often do stupid things to serve their greed, but they did not acquire the power that they have through any lack of intelligence.

    fragglerokk , 15 Oct 2017 11:13
    what everyone seems to forget is that whilst ancient Greece was the cradle of democracy it was not only a slave state (whose slaves had no rights to vote) but that only an elite minority were eligible to vote themselves - power very much rested with the vested interests of the few.

    I agree that societies are a reflection of the 'will' of the people these days, even if that will is ill informed, reactionary or, as seems to be the case, largely uninterested in voting. You get the governments you deserve and people in the West have become lazy, permanently distracted, often ignorant and usually in the grip of one addiction or another, thus allowing 'democracy' to be subverted. The media have had their role in this by allowing themselves to be manipulated and owned by vested interests, rarely reporting the truth and doing as they are told by various govt offices and departments. Uninformed people make poor decisions.

    OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:13
    What the Black Lives Matter movement is telling us is that the Oligarch's enforce their rules of 'law' precisely at the barrels of guns, and by the words of one man after one man, each with a uniform on and a camera off.
    TheResult -> J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 11:13
    National Anthems only make sense in context of International Games
    Where 2 anthems are played out of respect for each other
    Elgrecoandros -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 11:11
    Further, you stated above that you were "...responding to a poster who called for imprisonment for those concerned", when in fact the quote shows they were complaining about people calling for imprisonment, not calling for it.

    That shows you are twisting what was said, it is incredibly disingenuous of you.

    Skip Breitmeyer -> sparkle5nov , 15 Oct 2017 11:09
    It's the divisions of the left that allow Tory and Republican minority rule to prevail. In the US the divide is quite bitter between Hillary and Bernie wings of the Dems- at the moment I don't really see where reconciliation can emerge. And of course in Great Britain you actually have two major parties competing rather self-destructively for the available votes on the left. (As well as the mighty Greens...). Divided and conquered, indeed. And such a bloody cliche!
    OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:06

    Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality

    And yet Marx doesn't rate a single mention in the entire article...

    jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 11:06
    No, even though you've quoted me you have misunderstood what was perfectly plain. I stated 'like everyone else who voted to cut even more from disabled people's benefits'. Perhaps the OP was proposing prison for JRM for expressing a viewpoint, but that was not and is not where I'm coming from.
    OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:05

    At its core, oligarchy involves concentrating economic power and using it for political purposes.

    Here is the exact reason why the Democratic Party is lost now. The Clintons, Wasserman-Schultz, and their new Goldman Sachs alumni hero in New Jersey, and now Kamala Harris seeking the same money from the same bankers.

    And who did Hillary blame? Bernie, of course.

    PSmd -> Dark Angel , 15 Oct 2017 11:02
    It's sort of worked against the right though. Take a look at the last election. Yes, the Tories got most votes, but they've pretty much lost all ethnic minorities, including asian professionals, hindus and sikhs. Why is this, especially when Labour moved to left and are now more socialist than left liberal?

    Purely because the right has been subsumed by angry grievance mentality, or aggreived entitlement. The internet is awash by people who hate assertive blacks and asians, Dianne Abbott received half of all abuse of female MPs. And so.. the Labour pick up votes that Tories had gained under Cameron. If you are a prosperous hindu dentist or stockbroker, sure you might have shrugged off your parents labour voting tendencies and might be Tory. But also, you might be seeing this sort of stuff, the bile on the internet, the resentment expressed behind internet anonymity. And you might be thinking that deep down underneath that expensive suit of yours, you are your father and mother, a tentative, slightly frightened, cheaply dressed immigrant who has arrived as an outsider and are visibly aware that half the population likes you, but the other half doesn't.
    And so you vote Labour.

    Divisiveness actually divides the core group you are aiming to win. If you do white chauvinism, well, you end up unite everyone who is not white. Black, brown, yellow, all huddle together scared, back under the labour fold. And you end up dividing the whites into the patriotic and the 'self hating libtard'.

    Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 11:01
    The sequence of comments was...

    Rjm2017

    "Just read the language of many in here...apparent JRM should be banished and locked away. You don't need to look to far to find odeous beliefs."

    Your reply to that:

    "Not locked away. Prison is expensive for the taxpayer. Assets sequestered for the good of the commons and put to work cleaning - streets, hospitals, care homes - on workfare. Like everyone else who voted to cut even more from disabled people's benefits, causing what the UN has described as a 'catastrophe' for disabled people in this country"

    My reply to you:

    "You are advocating confiscation of private property and forced physical labour for people who hold different political views to you. Is Stalin a hero of yours?"


    Yours is a call to punish people for holding different political views to you.

    Yours is an extremist position and, like all extremists, you think it is justified.

    barciad -> FrankLittle , 15 Oct 2017 10:57

    e.g. Park Chung-hee sent thousands of homeless people to camps where they were used as slave labour, many were were tortured and executed.


    Like I said, benignish. He took a third world basket case (which is what South Korea was up until his seizure of power) and set it on the way to becoming a first world economy.
    Skip Breitmeyer -> BayardDC , 15 Oct 2017 10:56
    One of the most interesting mini-discourses I've read anywhere. I would only add that the 'mob' currently in charge of the polity of the House is actually a minority that has gamed the system.
    AladdinStardust -> Gunsarecivilrights , 15 Oct 2017 10:56
    which is exactly what the author did when her ill health meant that she no longer had medical insurance. Ain't life a bitch?
    OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 10:55

    They also tried to keep ordinary people dependent on individual oligarchs for their economic survival, similar to how mob bosses in the movies have paternalistic relationships in their neighborhoods

    Like Wine-stine? (Wine-stain?)

    Rainborough , 15 Oct 2017 10:55
    "Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality."

    No democrat with two working brain cells to rub together could honestly suppose that great concentrations of wealth, which necessarily confer political power on the wealthy class, can fail to undermine democracy. A capitalist democracy is an oxymoron and a delusion.

    ChesBay -> maddiemot , 15 Oct 2017 10:52
    They admire the rich, and the lifestyles of the rich, although it is out of their reach.
    They do not admire the wise, and the experienced.
    They don't know who are their state and federal representatives.
    They don't know the reason for the Civil War.
    They don't know much about our history, our constitution, or anything about civics.
    They don't know much about world history.
    They don't read much, and are suspicious of education, and the properly educated.
    They are easy marks for lies, and negative influence, because they never question.
    They refuse to address, or even admit, their own irrational prejudices.
    They don't vote, but they do plenty of complaining, and like to blame others for the problems of our nation.
    AveAtqueCave , 15 Oct 2017 10:51
    Good luck with that.
    FrankLittle -> barciad , 15 Oct 2017 10:45
    I do not think that benign or even benign(ish) suits the majority of the above e.g. Park Chung-hee sent thousands of homeless people to camps where they were used as slave labour, many were were tortured and executed.

    Not sure how Carl Mannerheim gets to be on your list? He was appointed Military chief during the Finnish civil war and he was elected President of Finland

    DammedOutraged , 15 Oct 2017 10:44
    Oh you mean a bit like all those plebs going out and voting to wreck the EU oligarchy's vision as to whats best?
    vastariner , 15 Oct 2017 10:44

    At the same time, they sought to destroy monuments that were symbols of democratic success. Instead of public works projects, dedicated in the name of the people, they relied on what we can think of as philanthropy to sustain their power.


    That was more because there was no income tax regime - something difficult to impose when there was no centralized collection from a single consistent professional government. So if the Athenian navy wanted a ship, it got a rich chap to pay for it. Rather than out of general taxation.

    Athens got rich on levies it imposed on its allies by way of protection money, which eventually collapsed in acrimony, but that's a different story.

    StephenR45 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 10:43
    You'll be first "over the top" then?
    Alfandomega -> timiengels , 15 Oct 2017 10:41
    Owen Jones ? ......a man of high minded principle and unblemished
    virtue . Don't think he would object to a spot of terror........in defence
    of his liberal principles , of course..
    somebody_stopme , 15 Oct 2017 10:41
    I guess we are seeing some of oligarchy break down. Many oligarchs support many socialist policies to avoid tension between classes. For eg: many rich support universal basic income and some even support single payer healthcare.
    imperium3 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 10:41

    You make a good point but in my wide but less than comprehensive knowledge of rapid development often occurrs in periods of oligarchy.

    All those mills that drove the industrial revolution, created by oligarchy.

    All those armies and aqueducts that drove the Roman Empire, created by oligarchy.

    All those libraries and universities that drove Greek learning, funded by the oligarchy.

    The great library of Alexandria, oligarchy.

    OK, I'll concede that. Which makes for an interesting perspective on things overall, actually. One can see the advantage of an oligarchy - wealth and power is concentrated in few enough hands to achieve great things, but not so few that, like in a monarchy or dictatorship, the leader must spend most time and effort on keeping their power. Whereas a more equal democracy lacks the capacity to make bold steps or drive through unpopular new ideas. But this also means the oligarchs have the power to grind down those underneath them, and therefore in order to enjoy the fruits of that development, the oligarchy needs to be destroyed.

    In other words, oligarchies deliver growth, democracies deliver prosperity. I would certainly not like to live under an oligarchy (assuming I'm not an oligarch) but it would be beneficial for a country to have had one in the past.

    Kay Nixon , 15 Oct 2017 10:40
    I have come to the conclusion that the oligarchy which rules the world are complete imbeciles who haven't a clue that the whole Neoliberal system they built in the 1970's is collapsing and they are clueless on how to handle it. Just because they are wealthy and greedy doesn't mean they are intelligent.
    J.K. Stevens -> TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 10:40
    In order to prevent the protests from going out over the airwaves Fox (sports) in all their 'logic' started excluding broadcast of the Anthem. Early on I said I would not watch any of these sporting events with, as you say, these jingoistic displays going out and Fox has obliged me but I wont say thanks.
    desertrat49 -> BayardDC , 15 Oct 2017 10:39
    Yes....Nothing in current affairs would surprise the ancient political philosophers who were students of real human nature ...and real history!
    yule620 , 15 Oct 2017 10:37
    Understanding Greece is not something you associate comfort with.
    desertrat49 -> DrPepperIsNotARealDr , 15 Oct 2017 10:36
    It serves as a relieve valve...just as it did in Ancient Greece and Rome.
    Obfusgator , 15 Oct 2017 10:36
    It's very simple really. The law system makes a complete mockery of democracy and the judiciary is comprised of a bunch of laissez-faire twits.
    desertrat49 -> TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 10:35
    The last recourse of scoundrels is patriotism!...always been thus because it always works...see H.L. Mencken et. al. !
    Postconventional -> SenseiTim , 15 Oct 2017 10:34
    Britain isn't different. Oligarchy is built into our system of governance, e.g. royals and house of lords. We even have special oligarch schools where children are sent to be educated for leadership
    desertrat49 -> zootsuitbeatnick , 15 Oct 2017 10:33
    You do not think the pomp and circumstance of Oligarchs, Monarchs and Military Dictators is without purpose or effect, do you?
    StephenR45 -> DolyGarcia , 15 Oct 2017 10:32
    Ban Keeping up with the Kardashians.
    Gunsarecivilrights -> ID059068 , 15 Oct 2017 10:31
    Or in other words, "I can't take care of myself, so I demand the government take money from others and give it to me!"
    maddiemot , 15 Oct 2017 10:31
    "An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy." - Thomas Jefferson

    We have Americans who don't know when the Civil War was fought, or even who won, but insist we must stand for the national anthem before a ballgame.
    So much for 'the Land of the Free'.

    EquilibriaJones -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 10:31
    Saying life can only get better if we are all collectively greedy together is not a logical argument. Ask the polar bears.
    StephenR45 -> davshev , 15 Oct 2017 10:30
    It didn't start with Trump.
    Gunsarecivilrights -> DirDigIns , 15 Oct 2017 10:30
    More people need to read Atlas Shrugged.
    desertrat49 -> MarmaladeMog , 15 Oct 2017 10:30
    All of the wishful thinking is hugely naive.....they have not been studying the lessons of history.
    J.K. Stevens -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 10:29
    And in the older grades, they prescribe (hand out) adderall, CSN stimulants, like chiclets to help student study (cram) and with comprehensive test taking.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/why-are-so-many-college-a_b_8331958.html

    desertrat49 -> DolyGarcia , 15 Oct 2017 10:28
    This is the rub.....and the mob does not value education while the rulers value propaganda. Notice the close association between Autocratic and Oligarchic systems and religion, historical mythology and hyper-patriotism!
    EquilibriaJones -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 10:28
    Or that's the evil of it. Economic inequality rises until people die. Like homeless on the streets, starving food banks, grenfell tower, waiting on hospital beds instead of famine and pitchfork wars.
    The idea is to progress and solve problems before they escalate to pitchfork wars. Praising grotesque inequality is not part of the solution, it's the cause of the problems.
    desertrat49 -> Crusty Crab , 15 Oct 2017 10:25
    H. L. Mencken is a must read on this!
    Alfandomega -> Peter Martin , 15 Oct 2017 10:24
    Very remote possibility . I think you'll find their over inflated salaries
    weigh more heavily in the balance than their " principles ".
    SenseiTim , 15 Oct 2017 10:24
    This article should be required reading for all Americans. I am posting a link to Twitter and Facebook to get as many Yank eyeballs on it as possible.
    desertrat49 -> Langsdorff , 15 Oct 2017 10:24
    What emerges from Plutocracy is Oligarchy...what emerges from Oligarchy is Autocracy. Autocracy is one form or another is the natural state of human society....all the others are ephemeral systems...or systems that disguise the actual Oligarchy or Autocracy!
    davshev , 15 Oct 2017 10:23
    The biggest contributor to America's plutocracy is our abysmally uninformed electorate.
    HL Mencken knew this nearly a century ago when he said:
    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    desertrat49 , 15 Oct 2017 10:20
    Just exactly when was it that "democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece"?
    What proportion of the population in Ancient Athens, for example, were actually citizens...and what proportion of those actually held the franchise?...I believe that you would find the numbers surprising!
    Also ...when these (and other) writers speaks of Ancient Greece.....it is usually Athens that they are mythologizing....most the Ancient Greek world had little by way of representative government...let alone "Democracy"!
    jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 10:18
    No I wasn't. I already responded to you regarding this. To remind you, I said

    when people in positions of power take £28 billion (at least) off one of the most powerless and already impoverished groups in our country (disabled people), resulting in hundreds of suicides, enormous suffering, worsened isolation, serious lack of care support, and thousands dying soon after being found 'fit to work' (a situation the UN has described as a 'catastrophe') then I think it perfectly reasonable to favour some punishment for those politicians who inflicted such suffering on their fellow citizens

    I was not suggesting punishment for 'thought crime' or for expressing views, but for actions seriously damaging to our citizens.
    OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 10:17
    I have worked in several of the American rich's schools where they charge $30k per kid, families have 3-5 kids there, plus they donate another $30k per kid per year. These schools shame their $50k/year teachers into donating hundreds and thousands per year to their own schools in order to prompt further donations from parents, who expect the poor teachers to prove their fidelity to these rich kids by giving their own money to them. I have seen these schools' principals fire teachers who teach "how to change things". I have seen them promote teachers who teach absolutely nothing, because then the rich kids enjoy insulting and demeaning those teachers' weaknesses. I have heard rich $chool principals tell Harvard psychology lecturers that grade inflation is a marketplace necessity. I have seen rich principals tell school inspectors that the curriculum presented for verification is supplied by a currently-employed teacher (who was awfully bad at teaching) when in fact it was written and prepared by a teacher who had just been fired "for methodology problems"...

    American rich schools are the sickest schools on earth, even sicker than British boarders, even sicker than other countries' orphanages.

    davshev -> ID50611L , 15 Oct 2017 10:15
    Yes, but we now have the consummate...emphasis on "con"...bullshit artist in the White House whose first order of business has been to discredit the media whenever it exposes him for what he truly is. Trump has thousands of people believing that any media story about him which is negative is "fake."
    Sailor25 -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 10:14
    Yes they did and in all those political systems there where rich bastards at the top making the decisions.

    They may have been bastards but on balance they actually made some pretty good decisions.

    RutherfordFHEA , 15 Oct 2017 10:13
    In his book Culture Inc. , Herbert Schiller quoted a recent study on neoliberal deregulation in the US which began with the question:

    "Is deregulation... a strategy on the part of corporations to re-appropriate the power lost to democratic reforms of the mid-20th century?"

    Sailor25 -> Dan2017 , 15 Oct 2017 10:13
    So you are in favour of populism?

    I consider populism an important part of the process as it creates a balance for oligarchy.

    I would consider that the greedy big picture thinking of oligarchy drives growth while the greedy small picture thinking of the plebs (of which I am one) tries to get that growth more equally distributed.

    ID50611L -> debt2zero , 15 Oct 2017 10:12
    Spot on
    MoonMoth -> Tenthred , 15 Oct 2017 10:10
    It is perhaps unlikely that a radical Athenian democrat from ancient Greece would recognise any current form of government as genuinely democratic.

    The cleverest way to maintain a long term oligarchy in these enlightened times might be to have an elective one, only dressed up as something like say a 'parliamentary democracy'. Luckily no-one has come up with this idea yet.

    Dark Angel , 15 Oct 2017 10:10
    Exactly that is going on now - we have 'workers' and 'benefit scroungers', British against 'immigrants' who exactly are not immigrants as having legal rights to live in the UK (EU citizens), 'deserving' poor and 'undeserving' poor.
    Divide and rule.
    Without knowing the past, it is impossible to understand the true meaning of the present and the goals of the future.
    It's so annoying that is has been so easy to manipulate with our society - Tories and UKIP say 'hate!' and people do as if they are trained animals - hate people on benefits, EU citizens, immigrants, asylum seekers, a conflict between Brexiters/Remainers...
    Sailor25 -> Swoll Man , 15 Oct 2017 10:09
    Laughing at the fact that you chose to write an insult rather than engage in debate.
    barciad -> FrankLittle , 15 Oct 2017 10:08
    Benign(ish) dictators of the 20th Century:-
    Tito (Yugoslavia)
    Carl Mannerheim (Finland)
    Kemal Ataturk (Turkey)
    Fidel Castro (Cuba)
    Nasser (Egypt)
    Park Chung-hee (South Korea)
    Like I said, benign(ish). Each one the subject for a debate within themselves.
    Sailor25 -> Boghaunter , 15 Oct 2017 10:07
    There is always winners and losers but the worst loser in modern British society had a better standard of living than a winner of a century ago.

    The key to human development is driving sustainable progress not worrying about who losses out today.

    Of course there must be balance because morally we must consider who loses our today. The question is how much do we hamstring the children of tomorrow to help the losers of today.

    Langsdorff , 15 Oct 2017 10:06
    To war on the Oligarchs is to war on our own nature.
    whitman100 , 15 Oct 2017 10:03
    The super rich conservative oligarchy, currently running the UK, get away with it because enough of the British people vote against their own economic interest.

    Parents, for example, effectively vote for the food to be taken from their children's mouths, converted to cash and given in tax cuts to the super rich conservative elite so they can send their children to £30k a year private schools.

    Political economy and political science should be compulsory in primary and secondary school so that the ripping-off of the British people is made obvious through education and ended through democratic revolution.

    GKB507 -> Giftshop , 15 Oct 2017 10:02
    .. it's scary though.. automation will eliminate the economic support line for many, while companies like Google have eyes and ears in every household.
    JamesKeye -> webapalooza , 15 Oct 2017 10:02
    Definition of democracy: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." You are presenting an anti-Democratic party talking point, not an enlightened understanding of subtle political differences. Of course, the intention was a democracy in the USA, as compromised as it was and is. What we are not, and never have been, is an absolute direct democracy -- a form of governance appropriate only to small communities.
    dcroteau -> Hibernica , 15 Oct 2017 10:01
    Considering that "the people" are not that much more enlightened than they were in ancient Greece, yes it is the will of the people that allowed the US to become an oligarchy.

    Considering the voting turnout around 56%, that means that 44% decided that they didn't care whether or not their leader would be a good or a bad one.

    That's more than 1 in 3 people who couldn't care less about the outcome of the elections.

    So political apathy is the will of the people.

    KK47 , 15 Oct 2017 10:00
    Oligarchs would fund the creation of a new building or the beautification of a public space.

    When I read this I think: why am I reminded of the words 'gentrification' and 'privately-owned public spaces'?

    https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/26/its-really-shocking-uk-cities-refusing-to-reveal-extent-of-pseudo-public-space

    Excerpt from the above link:
    the spread of pseudo-public space in London – large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers

    And I'm also reminded of Attlee's great words about the attitudes of oligarchs in general:

    http://www.azquotes.com/quote/688837

    Excerpt from the above link:
    Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim. - Attlee

    J.K. Stevens -> Peter Martin , 15 Oct 2017 10:00
    I know that it's just geography but it appears that the 'left coast (west coast) teams (players))' are taking a leadership role in this struggle. Unlike other professional sports systems, the NFL players are at a disadvantage in terms of career length and working conditions (eg, head injuries). I believe they're going to need some outside help (in whatever form) to be successful which doesn't give me hope. There are a bunch of chicken s____ outfits and power players out there at present that, as an example, allowed (contributed) the Executive Branch takeover by a Russian backed interloper.
    ID50611L -> Giftshop , 15 Oct 2017 09:58
    agree 100%
    Sailor25 -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 09:58
    You make a good point but in my wide but less than comprehensive knowledge of rapid development often occurrs in periods of oligarchy.

    All those mills that drove the industrial revolution, created by oligarchy.

    All those armies and aqueducts that drove the Roman Empire, created by oligarchy.

    All those libraries and universities that drove Greek learning, funded by the oligarchy.

    The great library of Alexandria, oligarchy.

    I recognise that it takes a plebeian revolt now and again to get the wealth shared out fairly but the engine that drives the wealth so it can be shared often seem to be oligarchy.

    sparkle5nov -> FE Lang , 15 Oct 2017 09:58
    Agree! I've been saying for years; cheap fast food, cheap ale and cheap television have replaced religion as the opiate of the people.
    ID50611L -> zootsuitbeatnick , 15 Oct 2017 09:57
    Trump is using the toolbox created by the Bush & Obama administrations.
    Crusty Crab , 15 Oct 2017 09:57
    A free educated and honest press may be the answer to a true democracy ?
    DolyGarcia -> Hector Hajnal , 15 Oct 2017 09:55
    And how do you keep the people informed and educated when the oligarchs control the media?
    ID50611L , 15 Oct 2017 09:54
    how is it, then, that the wealthy control so much of government? ...consequence of a lap dog media who lick the ass rather than expose and speak the truth to power elites.
    TheResult -> J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 09:53
    Now is the right time to ban the National Anthem

    Brainwashing jingoist nonsense is a bandwagon platform for wet farts

    W.a. Thomaston , 15 Oct 2017 09:50
    The captured author/minions have obviously not had full access to the reading room
    *And the secret writings of
    Part of a small cache of loose leaf scrolls smuggled out of Alexandria before the fire
    Last entrusted to a small elite 13th century band of chainsaw wielding warrior...
    Comedy writing nuns
    Hector Hajnal , 15 Oct 2017 09:49
    Is about education, oligarchy wins to ignorant people. In order to have a healthy democracy the people must be informed and educated other wise oligarchies groups will inundate everything with cheap adds, will manipulate and will win control, methinks
    Id1649 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 09:45
    And all brought down when the elites forgot that they were only the top of a pyramid and that they ultimately relied on those below. We at the foot of the monolith can see that the oligarchs serve only themselves so no longer buy into their project. We see that it is one big club and we - unlike our political masters - ain't in it. So empires fall.
    MarmaladeMog , 15 Oct 2017 09:45
    Sitaraman's colleague sounds worryingly naive.
    Sailor25 -> EquilibriaJones , 15 Oct 2017 09:44
    True, perhaps that's the beauty of it.

    The senators have to supply the bread and circuses the plebs want or out come the pitchforks.

    webapalooza , 15 Oct 2017 09:44
    The author demonstrates his ignorance of the American system of government. He uses the word "democracy" no less than 8 times, yet American is not a democracy and never has been a democracy. You will find no form of the word "democracy" in any of the founding documents. The Founding Fathers knew very well the dangers of democracies, and so they created the American government as a constitutional republic. Not once does the author mention that; I doubt he even knows what it means, let alone the difference.
    NoBets -> imipak , 15 Oct 2017 09:43
    If you're complaining because prices are (inevitably) regressive on the "poor" (however defined), what do you say to the obvious retort that this is indeed the main difference between being "poor", being comfortable, being affluent and being rich?

    What is the point of working and earning if it isn't aimed at making oneself less "poor" or more affluent?

    FrankieOwen -> TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 09:38
    Dunno, doesnt appear that they do in the rough parts of Chicago.
    furryandrew -> Commem , 15 Oct 2017 09:38
    Or as Mayer Amschel Rothschild correctly summed up the situation in 1790 - "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws"

    What this article fails to draw our attention to , and they never do, is that private banks CREATE 97% of our entire money supply (look up "fractional reserve banking"). Whilst that remains the case the "oligarchy" will always have firm control over the rest of us.

    Peter Martin -> J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 09:36
    Wonder what would happen if all players took a knee, if they all stood together then the owners would start to fret.
    nhickman -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 09:32
    There was a time when the deadliest military weapon was the longbow. It could only be handled by men who had been trained up since infancy.
    It enabled the English to rout a numerically superior French force at Agincourt, 1415.
    The notion that the early 15th century was a period of democratic government is an interesting reading of history.
    zootsuitbeatnick , 15 Oct 2017 09:32
    imo
    In the US today, the oligarchy cannot win without an assist from a significant segment -- not necessarily a majority -- of the overall population.
    9/11 taught us that many people are willing to give up freedoms for the myth of security.
    The Trump presidency is teaching us that many people are willing to give up their voice -- democracy -- for the myth of returning to a perceived better way of life (group superiority over racial, gender, religious, etc equality) from some bygone era.
    imo
    Newmacfan , 15 Oct 2017 09:30
    We are currently experiencing a destabalisation of our nation and fellow Western Nations by the dominant Western Nation to try to halt the failure of this vastly endebted bigger brother......how do we stop this?
    J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 09:28
    On this NFL Sunday it is not hard to imagine the secret meetings that owners and/or their representatives had to coalesce against Kaepernick's 'taking a knee' to stop this form of protest in its tracks as a oligarchical institution. On Tuesday, when Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones declared that any player taking a knee would not play today, the circle of the objective to chill dissent was complete.

    And the plutocratic beat goes on.

    TheLibrarianApe -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 09:27
    Top post.
    DrPepperIsNotARealDr , 15 Oct 2017 09:26
    Democracy was always like this. What is that famous quote, by Earl Grey or Sandwich or someone, in Parliament, about allowing peasants to have the vote? "I do this, not to weaken our power, but to preserve it"

    Democracy in the UK and the US has always been a forum for the oligarchy to resolve their own disputes rather than rule for the people by the people. Brexit is an example, a referendum held essentially because of the split in conservative party.

    FE Lang -> zippy200 , 15 Oct 2017 09:25
    And conservatives are going to save us all from done minded feel good policies of the left, is that it?
    Since the 80's American politics had swing do far to the right liberals are capitalists monied elites, but the right had an army of simple minded uneducated lemmings on thier side, people that will be against thier own personal interests because of 12th century religious horse spit or group think. Thier are more Right winners in State houses, leadership positions then ever before, they control the Congress, the courts, the Presidency and yet dolts like you still say the country is going in the wrong directions and listen to son misters tell you its the fault of the left. Somewhere in your reptilian brain you know this makes no sense, but you lack of depth, you inability to comprehend what you read or to shake free from the group think or right wing ideology will never let you understand that the bet people you vote in time after time are the very ones whom have sold your job to the Chinese, profited from your child's illnesses, war, chaos in some far off land.
    Keeping voting Republicans, it's working out so well for you tailer, Nascar types...
    BayardDC , 15 Oct 2017 09:21
    The article obfuscates a distinction laid out by Aristotle, in The Politics: aristocracy - rule by the few, focused on the common good; and oligarchy - rule by the few (wealthy), focused on their selfish good. He argues that aristocracy, rule by the best, inevitably turns into oligarchy, rule by the wealthy. In Aristotle's three forms of government - rule by one, by few, by many - the three legitimate forms (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) degenerate into their evils twins (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy). For Aristotle, Democracy was not a legitimate form of government, but a corrupted form: mob rule, we might call it. The US Constitution deliberately set out to create a mixed form of government: monarchy (president); aristocracy (Senate and Supreme Court); polity (House of Reps.). From the beginning, Americans have focused on the potential for our "monarch" (president) to turn into a tyrant: Trump is the poster child for a single executive ruling on his own, selfish behalf. We have been less aware of the fact that the Senate has become a simple oligarchy, while the House has degenerated into a bastion of deputies chosen by what Aristotle would have called democracy, that is, a corrupted form of rule by the many. Aristotle's citizens - those who rule and are ruled in turn - can constitute about 10% of the population; in today's US that would mean 20+ million people actively and continuously involved in politics (i.e., not simply showing up every four years to mark a ballot). Millions of Americans have long done such things, and political life remains active at the local level in many areas. On the national level, the Tea Party has shown how this level of enhanced involvement can transform politics, and has further shown that a coherent, organized minority can demolish what we think of as democratic norms. They are about to elect a Senator in Alabama who has twice been removed as a judge on the state's Supreme Court (an elective body), for violations of judicial norms. Here in the US, all three forms of our original government - monarchy, aristocracy, polity - have degenerated into their evil twins. Yes, the wealthy 1% will always game the system in their favor, but until we restore each of the parts of our forma mixta, we can never reduce their advantages to a level consonant with a decent form of society. Under W Bush, the oligarchs got the tax rates (above all on capital gains) reduced to their 1929 levels. That legislation had a time limit, and Obama chose not to continue it: indeed, he raised capital gains rates a further 3.8% [making the rate 23.8% as against the 15% of Bush]. Now, the two greatest goals of the oligarchs are a return to the 15% rate and the abolition of the estate tax, so all of the fantastically rich Baby Boomers (say, Sec'y of Commerce Ross, net worth $2.5 billion) can leave their wealth unencumbered to their heirs, solidifying the oligarchy's control. The Tea Party, through all the yahoos now in the House, can focus on creationism, climate change denial, immigration, etc., while the oligarchs quietly change the tax system to perpetuate their dominance. Over here, we are already in fiscal year 2018 (started on Oct 1), so tax changes would really go into effect in 2019, that is, after the mid-term election. If Mnuchen and Co. get their changes to capital gains rates and other technical loopholes aimed at the 0.1% [sic], and eliminate the estate tax, we'll know that the oligarchs have eliminated any barriers to their collective dictatorship.
    TheLibrarianApe -> Commem , 15 Oct 2017 09:20
    This is a blindingly excellent article.

    What's new is, like this article, we have the vocabulary to frame both the problem and the solution. Oligarchy is no longer inevitable and whilst the means of control are greater, the means for derogation are too and there are fewer oligarchs than plebs.

    Its now easier to spot bad behaviour and harder to keep secrets. Oligarchs have to use force more often to hold into power and that tips their hand.

    This article has left me (an avowed pessimist) feeling rather more optimistic.

    BlueberryMuffin -> zippy200 , 15 Oct 2017 09:17
    Liberalism is about freedom. Personal and economic. Not about "proletariat solidarity" and totalitarian Marxist regimes.
    FE Lang -> GusDynamite , 15 Oct 2017 09:15
    They learned their lessons well after the 60's, the last time the people really raised up against the machine, so they have given us all the; junk food at a low cost, all the TV and mindless sexually charged entertainment, all the "debt wealth", a simple minded, unread, semi-literate, beer swilling fool could ever ask for. And we all gladly gobble it up and follow the crowd, for who wants to be on the outside looking in...
    Giftshop , 15 Oct 2017 09:12
    There is always a ruling elite because power is the wellspring of all human actions. There is also a certain moral consciousness that many people argue is innate in human nature, and that consciousness is fairness. The fairness instinct survives where ordinary human sympathy may fail. Based upon this basic morality of fairness those of us who are willing to take risks in the interest of fairness need to prune and tend the ruling elites as soon as possible. We proles need to act together.

    Democracy is not enough and besides democracy we also need reason, facts,and fighting spirit.

    W.a. Thomaston -> awilson5280 , 15 Oct 2017 09:09
    As the inventor of the "hydrodaktulopsychicharmonica" once said: " you have a Republic if you can keep it"
    amwink -> awilson5280 , 15 Oct 2017 09:06
    Sparta was more than just militarism, and slavery was also practised in Athens, as well as in Rome and quite much everywhere else in the ancient world.

    Sparta did something that today's democracies have forgotten: it cared about protection of its citizens. That's the most elementary reason why a State exists, not to provide health or education.

    Now, regarding a replacement, epistocracy has yet to be tried. And the same democracy, but with census suffrage, or via election of electors, who in turn elect the ones who will hold office, have worked quite well in many places, producing better politicians, less inclined to populism (take the Venetian Republic, for example).

    logos00 -> apacheman , 15 Oct 2017 09:05

    Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation.

    One must have already broken, or at least sufficiently loosened, the oligarchic grip on politics to institute such a policy.

    Here in the UK, things are the darkest they have been in my lifetime, including the Thatcher years, but we are in a moment of possibilities that can lead in opposite directions.

    The author is surely right when he says

    With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations.

    Dominance of oligarchic political power, through neoliberalism, over the last four decades has effectively put such policies out of bounds.

    We had a Labour government that won convincingly under Blair while declaring itself relaxed about the accumulation of great wealth.

    richard160458 -> MattSpanner , 15 Oct 2017 09:05
    And democracy failed after generations of poor decisions and war
    richard160458 , 15 Oct 2017 09:02
    Greece had a long period of decline at the hands of democracy. Plato wrote his Republic as a protest, and to put forward an alternative. Eventually the romans took control.

    There are indeed parallels with today but given the external challenges I for one believe that western society will be overtaken by q new set of rules.

    debt2zero , 15 Oct 2017 09:01
    Very good, interesting article. You know, every now & then this paper, for all it's faults, serves up an article that is quite enlightened/ing.

    The last one I recall was an article by Kenan Malik on identity politics . For what exists in this country, the UK, I have previously used the term "oligarchy by profession" ... meaning a pool of the usually upper half of the middle class, or a group in whom that group is disproportionally represented, who not only likely have a select education but who go on to become part of certain professions - accountants, lawyers, journalists, bankers, doctors etc. ... and of course, politicians tend to be drawn from these.

    And revolving door arrangements is one of the ways this pool retains a certain cohesion, or as in the article "homogeneity in culture and values".

    As for division, how many times have I read, "oh, we are so divided .. blah, blah", as though some journalists have an almost unconscious need to promote it.

    Interesting article.

    GusDynamite , 15 Oct 2017 09:00
    Bit too late, really. Not to mention it's super easy to take what they want while we're all so distracted by arguing about who is the most racist misogynist, defending ourselves from the accusations or applauding comic book movies. Apparently we're so distracted that we're also all genuinely shocked that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia and extreme sexual harassment as though it's some revelation that we didn't know already, but that's another conversation.

    If we're all so distracted then it's not difficult for our political 'representatives' -- I use that word very tentatively because they barely ever do -- to subject themselves to the oligarchs for a few scraps more than we have ourselves.

    Maybe if we didn't bicker like kids we'd beat them.

    PhilJoMar -> ConBrio , 15 Oct 2017 08:53
    Either you've not read the article attentively enough or your bias is irremediable. Limiting govt still leaves economic power and the tendency towards monopoly untouched. The genetic impulse you mention is a spurious concept in itself. If there were such a genetic impulse we would not have seen such a change as the major advances of women in the last half century. Culture is the key, much more than any genetic impulse, which is practically meaningless and so explains nothing.

    As wealth defense is so important to oligarchs, there is a constant pressure to cheat and break the law. One solution therefore is to apply the law but also to construct legislation with specific principles in mind. If the point of tax legislation is to contribute your share towards the general good then those who avoid and evade tax would be guilty of a technical breach but also a breach of the principle.

    However our laws are skewed to allowing the wealthy to defend their wealth and so a party of the people is always needed. Always.

    Lastly private schooling needs to be looked at. I mean FFS Eton has charitable status!

    [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

    Highly recommended!
    Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
    An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
    The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
    "... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
    "... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
    "... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
    "... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
    "... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
    "... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
    "... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
    "... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
    "... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
    "... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
    "... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
    Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Originally from: The elites "have no credibility left" by Chris Hedges

    But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.

    This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour. It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the 1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country.

    Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities, where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control. They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population that becomes restive.

    The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions.

    Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater.

    These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.

    ... ... ...

    DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation of this?

    CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on "Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity, meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying, racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.

    I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.

    The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced.

    DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who pitch it to them.

    CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.

    DN: It goes the other way too?

    CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.

    DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left."

    CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.

    If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this cartoonish vision of politics.

    The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch.

    I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis. We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.

    So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with people who consider themselves part of the left.

    The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!

    Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors.

    [Oct 11, 2017] Donald Trump is exposing the contradictions of the elite by David Callahan

    That's neoliberal elite after all. Why the author expects them to be ashamed is unclear
    Notable quotes:
    "... Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street. ..."
    "... History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households. ..."
    Oct 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Since January, though, we've also seen a new level of rapaciousness by corporate interests in Washington DC that seem intent on extracting as much wealth as they can from wherever they can: consumers, investors, public lands, student borrowers, the tax code and even the war in Afghanistan.

    Longtime watchers of the .01% won't be surprised by this bifurcated picture. For over two decades, an ever more educated wealthy elite has trumpeted its belief in tolerance, diversity, and meritocracy – even as it's also helped usher in record levels of inequality that have left many Americans feeling economically excluded and increasingly angry.

    Trump's retrograde presidency has revealed the profound contradictions at the top of the US income ladder.

    ... ... ...

    Corporate leaders have already been supportive of Trump's sweeping push to gut regulations in ways that would tilt the rules governing the economy more in favor of business and the wealthy. Social inclusion may be a growing public mantra of the far upper class. But economic extraction remains among its core operating principles.

    ... ... ...

    Social inclusion is a public mantra of the upper class. But economic extraction remains a core operating principle

    The answer is that many corporate and financial leaders were, and still are, a big part of the problem. These leaders have fostered the economic conditions that have thrown the values of tolerance and diversity on the defensive in America.

    Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street.

    ... ... ...

    History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households.

    Rarely has the American experiment – the notion of a country united by ideas rather than shared heritage – felt more fragile than it does right now. It's an ugly picture of division and resentment, but a predictable one given the economic trauma inflicted on millions of people over recent decades.

    ... ... ...

    David Callahan is the author of The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. He is the founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy

    [Oct 11, 2017] Among the crises effecting the United States, the one effecting us most profoundly is the absence of any accountability for the crimes committed by our oligarchic class

    Notable quotes:
    "... his thinking that corporations, the mainstream media, and the academy can and do successfully "game" dissent by suppression, divide and conquer, co-optation, and so on, is spot on. ..."
    Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    JackOH > , October 9, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

    I'm a moderate admirer of Chris Hedges, but he is really cooking in this interview. Too much to praise here, but his thinking that corporations, the mainstream media, and the academy can and do successfully "game" dissent by suppression, divide and conquer, co-optation, and so on, is spot on.

    alexander > , October 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

    I think this was an excellent discussion, and I would like to thank you both for having it, and sharing it.

    Among the crises effecting the United States, the one effecting us most profoundly is the absence of any accountability for the crimes committed by our oligarchic class.

    Addressing this issue is ground zero for any meaningful change.

    If there is no accountability for their crimes , there will be no change.

    Certainly the greatest among these crimes was(is) defrauding the nation into " a war of aggression". which, being the supreme international crime, should be met with harsh prison sentences for all who promoted it.

    It is important for everyone to recognize just how much damage these policies have done to the country, not just in terms of our collective morale or our constitutional mandates,not just in terms of our international standing on universal principles of legality and justice, but our long term economic solvency as a nation.

    The "exceptionalism" of our "war of aggression" elites has completely devastated our nation's balance sheet.

    Since 9-11, our national debt has grown by a mind numbing "fourteen and a half trillion dollars".. nearly quadrupling since 1999.

    This unconscionable level of "overspending" is unprecedented in human history.

    Not one lawmaker, not one primetime pundit, nor one editorialist (of any major newspaper), has a CLUE how to deal with it.

    Aside from the root atrocity in visiting mass murder on millions of innocents who never attacked us (and never intended to) which is a horrible crime in and of itself,

    There is the profound crisis , in situ , of potentially demanding that 320 million Americans PAY FOR THE WARS OUR ELITES LIED US INTO .

    This is where the rubber meets the road for our "war of aggression-ists ", gentlemen.

    This is the "unanimous space" of our entire country's population on the issue of "no taxation without representation".

    WHOSE assets should be made forfeit to pay for these wars .The DECEIVERS or the DECEIVED ?

    Ask "The People" ..and you will find your answer .very fast.

    No wonder our "elites" are terrified to discuss this .

    Absolutely terrified.

    Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 4:10 am GMT

    @alexander

    No wonder our "elites" are terrified to discuss this .

    They're not terrified–they know full well that they don't have to discuss it. Control of the flow of information eliminates any such necessity.

    We're right now in the consolidation phase, during which the last few remaining pockets of dissent are thoroughly vilified, rooted out, made illegal and worse: unthinkable.

    The idiotic grievance warriors whom–to his credit–Mr Hedges identifies as such, are the verbal equivalent of the violent criminal shock troops with which the elites afflict us. The 'identity politics' they champion are an extremely useful cudgel in the endless divide-and-conquer strategy.

    jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT

    It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy.

    That's cringe-worthy.

    Transformation into an oligarchy? Transformation ??? I like Hedges' work, but such fundamental errors really taint what he sez.

    The country was never transformed into an oligarchy; it began as one.

    In fact, it was organized and functioned as a pluto-oligarchy right out of the box. In case anyone has the dimness to argue with me about it, all that shows is that you don't know JS about how the cornstitution was foisted on the rest of us by the plutoligarchs.

    "An elective despotism was not the government we fought for "

    -Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782 . ME 2:163

    The Elites "Have No Credibility Left"

    Guess what, boys and girls Why did they have any to begin with?

    Where do people get their faith? WakeTF up, already!! (Yes, I'm losing it. Because even a duumbshit goy like myself can see it. Where are all you bright bulb know-it-alls with all the flippin answers???)

    jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 11:35 am GMT

    Newspapers are trapped in an old system of information they call "objectivity" and "balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy and obscure the truth.

    It's amazing that here we are, self-anointed geniuses and dumbos alike, puttering around in the 21st century, and someone feels the necessity to point that out. And he's right; it needs to be pointed out. Drummed into our skulls in fact.

    Arrrgggghhhh!!! Jefferson again.:

    Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

    Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 14 June 1807

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html

    More deja vu all over again and again. Note the date.:

    "This is a story of a powerful and wealthy newspaper having enormous influence And never a day out of more than ten thousand days that this newspaper has not subtly and cunningly distort the news of the world in the interest of special privilege. "

    Upton Sinclair, "The crimes of the "Times" : a test of newspaper decency," pamphlet, 1921

    https://archive.org/stream/crimesofthetimes00sincrich/crimesofthetimes00sincrich

    jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT

    I find it most fascinating that none of what Hedges says is news, but even UR readers probably think it is. Here's an antidote to that idea.

    The following quote is from Eugene Kelly who's excoriating government press releases but the criticism applies as well to the resulting press reports. I found the whole article striking.:

    Any boob can deduce, a priori, what type of "news" is contained in this rubbish.

    -Eugene A. Kelly, Distorting the News, The American Mercury, March 1935 , pp. 307-318

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury/

    I'd like good evidence that the situation has improved since then. Good luck.

    jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

    The Elites "Have No Credibility Left"

    Who thinks they had any to begin with? The quote, below, is almost 2000 years old

    Apollo, too, who pretends to be so clever, with his bow and his lyre and his medicine and his prophecies; those oracle-shops that he has opened at Delphi, and Clarus, and Dindyma, are a cheat; he takes good care to be on the safe side by giving ambiguous answers that no one can understand, and makes money out of it, for there are plenty of fools who like being imposed upon,–but sensible people know well enough that most of it is clap-trap

    Leto. Oh, of course; my children are butchers and impostors. I know how you hate the sight of them.

    -Lucian of Samosata, DIALOGUES OF THE GODS, XVI, ~150AD

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl1/wl124.htm

    [Oct 08, 2017] The Dark History of Fear, Inc

    Notable quotes:
    "... None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer), over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss. The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July. ..."
    "... The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the 1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts of the world " are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ." ..."
    "... The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse), that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are, but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict" (that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism, doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony. ..."
    "... The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. ..."
    "... That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. ..."
    "... So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages. ..."
    Oct 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Back in 1835, Samuel F.B. Morse (who went on to invent the telegraph and the Morse Code), wrote a book about a plot to overthrow the American republic. The conspiracy, Morse wrote, was well-funded, highly secretive, and hatched in Vienna by members of the The St. Leopold Foundation, which had dispatched cells of Jesuit missionaries to the U.S. to forcibly convert the nation to Roman Catholicism. This was no small intrigue: The plot's leaders, as Morse meticulously catalogued, were Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternich, Ferdinand V of Hungary, and (of course) Pope Gregory XVI. "It is high time that we awakened to the apprehension of danger," Morse wrote .

    What is shocking about this nonsense is not that Morse actually believed it, but that millions of other Americans did too. Morse's book seeded the rise of the nativist "Know-Nothing" party , whose goal was to curb immigration, root out Catholicism, and return America to its protestant ideals. In essence, they were the America-firsters of the nineteenth century. The Know-Nothings swept into office in Chicago, were strong in Massachusetts and, in 1856, nominated a national ticket (Millard Fillmore and Andrew Donelson), for the presidency; they tallied nearly 900,000 votes, one-quarter of those cast. "I know nothing but my country, my whole country and nothing but my country," they chanted.

    Historians have since excavated the Morse plot with relish, if only as a way to better understand a nation that, from time to time, enjoys being scared witless.

    Before the Know-Nothings there were the Anti-Masons, a political movement that warned of a takeover by secretive apron-wearing do-gooders who met for god-knows-why. And before that Americans were warned about witches named Dorothy, Rebecca, Martha, and Rachel, dancing in New England's forests. Some 120 years after Morse, in 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter dubbed this "the paranoid style in American politics" -- a paradigm-shifting essay that catalogued a raft of intrigues peopled by witches, Illuminati, Masons, Jesuits, Mormons, Jewish bankers, Bilderbergers and, in Hofstadter's time, communist dupes doing Moscow's bidding. America's enemies might be unseen, but they were everywhere.

    "In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship," Hofstadter wrote, "is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it managed to survive at all."

    None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer), over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss. The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July.

    The historical "for instance" in this is well-documented: during the 1960 presidential campaign, John Kennedy insisted that the Soviet Union had outstripped the U.S. in ballistic missile production. There was a growing and dangerous "missile gap" Kennedy claimed, placing the nation in great peril. Dwight Eisenhower, he said, had been derelict in not acknowledging the threat. An independent study commission issued a report that confirmed the fear and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave it credence: We are "turning out missiles like sausages," he claimed. As it turns out, Kennedy was right: there was a missile gap, but not in a way that he thought -- we had plenty, while they had none (a later CIA report speculated that, actually, they might have had three, maybe). Years later, Kennedy's claim looked downright foolish: the problem for the Russians wasn't that they couldn't make missiles (they eventually did, and plenty of them), but that they couldn't make sausages -- which cost them their empire. The same kinds of claims were retailed by U.S. intelligence services about Russia's allies: a 1987 CIA fact book said that East Germany's GDP per capita was higher than West Germany's, a claim so ludicrous that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan dismissed it to a panel of CIA officers with a legendary quip: "I know a Berlin taxi driver who could have told you that wasn't true."

    The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the 1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts of the world " are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ."

    The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse), that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are, but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict" (that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism, doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony.

    Gen. Barry McCaffrey said that Mexico was in a state of collapse back in 2009, a claim contradicted by then-Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. More recently, and before the recent earthquake shook Mexico City, the collapsing Mexican government offered to help provide aid to Texans victimized by Hurricane Harvey. It's a wonder they would think of us as the walls were coming down around them. Then too, if Mexico is really on the verge of collapse, shouldn't the administration be doing something about it -- perhaps we should appeal to the international community to provide the Mexican government with low interest loans, or maybe we should deploy a U.S. aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Mexico. Or perhaps, just perhaps, the claim is Morse-like: designed to frighten us, perhaps, into building a wall as a barrier to keep immigrants who are not pouring over the border from pouring over the border.

    The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. But Stoltenberg went further, inviting Russia to be a part of the Afghanistan peace process -- a strange request to a nation that a top U.S. general claims is helping the enemy. Even so, the claim was repeated just this last week by Defense Secretary James Mattis, who added Iran to the growing list of Taliban allies. Of course, Nicholson and Mattis might be absolutely right, but they're saying so doesn't make it so. Then too (we shuffle our feet, look at our shoes, mumble to ourselves), the Taliban's best friend in Afghanistan isn't Russia or Iran, it's Pakistan -- our friend.

    That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. The result is that the Russian Federation continues technological advances in some weapons systems, but lacks significant technological depth elsewhere. During its 2015 May Day military parade, Russia showed off its new state-of-the-art T-14 main battle tank, complete with a new-fangled APS (active protection system) designed to defeat anti-armor weapons. Onlookers ogled the tank, oohing and ahhing at its shiny exterior, its impressive armament. But then, just as it was about to exit Red Square it broke down -- and had to be towed. Is Russia a threat? Sure, it's a threat. But Russia has many of the same problems now that it had at the end of the Cold War. It ranks 53rd in per capita GDP -- just behind Panama.

    The world has problems, big problems but it is not going to hell. Here's what going to hell looks like. In the autumn of 1941, Europe was under the domination of a genocidal regime that had extended its murderous policies through all of Europe and whose armies were headed towards Moscow. In Asia, large swathes of China and all of Southeast Asia were occupied by Japanese militarists. The two, with Italy, had formed an axis and controlled significant portions of the globe. Their enemies were teetering on the edge of defeat. The world was going to hell, alright, but the U.S. had yet to get into the war.

    But that's not the worst of it. During the early morning hours of September 26, 1983, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov was notified by his computer system that the U.S. had launched five intercontinental ballistic missiles at Russia. Petrov sat there for a moment, when he should have been on the telephone to his superiors. After several moments he concluded that the warning just didn't make sense. Why would the U.S. launch only five missiles at Russia, when everyone in the Soviet military supposed they would launch a barrage. "The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds," he later told the BBC, "staring at the big, back-lit, red screen with the word 'launch' on it." Petrov ignored the warning -- and may well have prevented a nuclear holocaust.

    So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages.

    Now, as then, we have two choices: we can either embrace our fears and shake in our boots, or we can tell the sky-is-falling crowd what Samuel F.B. Morse's friends told him all the way back in 1835.

    Get a grip.

    Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst and the author of The Most Dangerous Man in America: The Making of Douglas MacArthur. His next book, The Pentagon's Wars, will be released in October. He tweets @markperrydc

    [Oct 05, 2017] How Billionaires become Billionaires - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Billionaires in the commercial conglomerates, like Walmart, exploit workers by paying poverty wages and providing few, if any, benefits. Walmart earns $16 billion dollar a year in profits by paying its workers between $10 and $13 an hour and relying on state and federal assistance to provide services to the families of its impoverished workers through Medicaid and food stamps. ..."
    "... Inequality is not a result of 'technology' and 'education'- contemporary euphemisms for the ruling class cult of superiority – as liberals and conservative economists and journalists like to claim. Inequalities are a result of low wages, based on big profits, financial swindles, multi-trillion dollar public handouts and multi-billion-dollar tax evasion. ..."
    "... Workers pay disproportional taxes for education, health, social and public services and subsidies for billionaires ..."
    "... First and foremost, billionaires and their political, legal and corporate associates dominate the political parties. They designate the leaders and key appointees, thus ensuring that budgets and policies will increase their profits, erode social benefits for the masses and weaken the political power of popular organizations ..."
    "... As a result, wage and salary workers are less organized and less influential; they work longer and for less pay, suffer greater workplace insecurity and injuries – physical and mental – fall into decline and disability, drop out of the system, die earlier and poorer, and, in the process, provide unimaginable profits for the billionaire class ..."
    "... The bulk of repatriated profits are directed to buy back stock to increase dividends for investors; they are not invested in the productive economy. Lower taxes and greater profits for conglomerates means more buy-outs and greater outflows to low wage countries. In real terms taxes are already less than half the headline rate and are a major factor heightening the concentration of income and power – both cause and effect. ..."
    "... In other words, the capitalist class as a whole, globalist and domestic alike, pursues the same regressive policies, promoting inequalities while struggling over shares of the profits. One hundred and fifty million wage and salaried taxpayers are excluded from the political and social decisions that directly affect their income, employment, rates of taxation, and political representation. ..."
    "... However, worker hostility and despair is directed against 'immigrants' and against the 'liberals' who have backed the import of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labor under the guise of 'freedom'. This 'politically correct' image of imported labor covers up a policy, which has served to lower wages, benefits and living standards for American workers, whether they are in technology, construction or production. ..."
    "... The pro and anti-immigrant issue avoids the root cause for the economic exploitation and social degradation of the working class – the billionaire owners operating in alliance with the political elite. ..."
    Oct 05, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Billionaires in the commercial conglomerates, like Walmart, exploit workers by paying poverty wages and providing few, if any, benefits. Walmart earns $16 billion dollar a year in profits by paying its workers between $10 and $13 an hour and relying on state and federal assistance to provide services to the families of its impoverished workers through Medicaid and food stamps. Amazon plutocrat Jeff Bezos exploits workers by paying $12.50 an hour while he has accumulated over $80 billion dollars in profits. UPS CEO David Albany takes $11 million a year by exploiting workers at $11 an hour. Federal Express CEO, Fred Smith gets $16 million and pays workers $11 an hour.

    Inequality is not a result of 'technology' and 'education'- contemporary euphemisms for the ruling class cult of superiority – as liberals and conservative economists and journalists like to claim. Inequalities are a result of low wages, based on big profits, financial swindles, multi-trillion dollar public handouts and multi-billion-dollar tax evasion. The ruling class has mastered the 'technology' of exploiting the state, through its pillage of the treasury, and the working class. Capitalist exploitation of low paid production workers provides additional billions for the 'philanthropic' billionaire family foundations to polish their public image – using another tax avoidance gimmick – self-glorifying 'donations'.

    Workers pay disproportional taxes for education, health, social and public services and subsidies for billionaires.

    Billionaires in the arms industry and security/mercenary conglomerates receive over $700 billion dollars from the federal budget, while over 100 million US workers lack adequate health care and their children are warehoused in deteriorating schools.

    Workers and Bosses: Mortality Rates

    Billionaires and multi-millionaires and their families enjoy longer and healthier lives than their workers. They have no need for health insurance policies or public hospitals. CEO's live on average ten years longer than a worker and enjoy twenty years more of healthy and pain-free lives.

    Private, exclusive clinics and top medical care include the most advanced treatment and safe and proven medication which allow billionaires and their family members to live longer and healthier lives. The quality of their medical care and the qualifications of their medical providers present a stark contrast to the health care apartheid that characterizes the rest of the United States.

    Workers are treated and mistreated by the health system: They have inadequate and often incompetent medical treatment, cursory examinations by inexperienced medical assistants and end up victims of the widespread over-prescription of highly addictive narcotics and other medications. Over-prescription of narcotics by incompetent 'providers' has significantly contributed to the rise in premature deaths among workers, spiraling cases of opiate overdose, disability due to addiction and descent into poverty and homelessness. These irresponsible practices have made additional billions of dollars in profits for the insurance corporate elite, who can cut their pensions and health care liabilities as injured, disabled and addicted workers drop out of the system or die.

    The shortened life expectancy for workers and their family members is celebrated on Wall Street and in the financial press. Over 560,000 workers were killed by opioids between 1999-2015 contributing to the decline in life expectancy for working age wage and salary earners and reduced pension liabilities for Wall Street and the Social Security Administration.

    Inequalities are cumulative, inter-generational and multi-sectorial.

    Billionaire families, their children and grandchildren, inherit and invest billions. They have privileged access to the most prestigious schools and medical facilities, and conveniently fall in love to equally privileged, well-connected mates to join their fortunes and form even greater financial empires. Their wealth buys favorable, even fawning, mass media coverage and the services of the most influential lawyers and accountants to cover their swindles and tax evasion.

    Billionaires hire innovators and sweat shop MBA managers to devise more ways to slash wages, increase productivity and ensure that inequalities widen even further. Billionaires do not have to be the brightest or most innovative people: Such individuals can simply be bought or imported on the 'free market' and discarded at will.

    Billionaires have bought out or formed joint ventures with each other, creating interlocking directorates. Banks, IT, factories, warehouses, food and appliance, pharmaceuticals and hospitals are linked directly to political elites who slither through doors of rotating appointments within the IMF, the World Bank, Treasury, Wall Street banks and prestigious law firms.

    Consequences of Inequalities

    First and foremost, billionaires and their political, legal and corporate associates dominate the political parties. They designate the leaders and key appointees, thus ensuring that budgets and policies will increase their profits, erode social benefits for the masses and weaken the political power of popular organizations .

    Secondly, the burden of the economic crisis is shifted on to the workers who are fired and later re-hired as part-time, contingent labor. Public bailouts, provided by the taxpayer, are channeled to the billionaires under the doctrine that Wall Street banks are too big to fail and workers are too weak to defend their wages, jobs and living standards.

    Billionaires buy political elites, who appoint the World Bank and IMF officials tasked with instituting policies to freeze or reduce wages, slash corporate and public health care obligations and increase profits by privatizing public enterprises and facilitating corporate relocation to low wage, low tax countries.

    As a result, wage and salary workers are less organized and less influential; they work longer and for less pay, suffer greater workplace insecurity and injuries – physical and mental – fall into decline and disability, drop out of the system, die earlier and poorer, and, in the process, provide unimaginable profits for the billionaire class . Even their addiction and deaths provide opportunities for huge profit – as the Sackler Family, manufacturers of Oxycontin, can attest.

    The billionaires and their political acolytes argue that deeper regressive taxation would increase investments and jobs. The data speaks otherwise. The bulk of repatriated profits are directed to buy back stock to increase dividends for investors; they are not invested in the productive economy. Lower taxes and greater profits for conglomerates means more buy-outs and greater outflows to low wage countries. In real terms taxes are already less than half the headline rate and are a major factor heightening the concentration of income and power – both cause and effect.

    Corporate elites, the billionaires in the Silicon Valley-Wall Street global complex are relatively satisfied that their cherished inequalities are guaranteed and expanding under the Demo-Republican Presidents- as the 'good times' roll on.

    Away from the 'billionaire elite', the 'outsiders' – domestic capitalists – clamor for greater public investment in infrastructure to expand the domestic economy, lower taxes to increase profits, and state subsidies to increase the training of the labor force while reducing funds for health care and public education. They are oblivious to the contradiction.

    In other words, the capitalist class as a whole, globalist and domestic alike, pursues the same regressive policies, promoting inequalities while struggling over shares of the profits. One hundred and fifty million wage and salaried taxpayers are excluded from the political and social decisions that directly affect their income, employment, rates of taxation, and political representation. They understand, or at least experience, how the class system works. Most workers know about the injustice of the fake 'free trade' agreements and regressive tax regime, which weighs heavy on the majority of wage and salary earners.

    However, worker hostility and despair is directed against 'immigrants' and against the 'liberals' who have backed the import of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labor under the guise of 'freedom'. This 'politically correct' image of imported labor covers up a policy, which has served to lower wages, benefits and living standards for American workers, whether they are in technology, construction or production. Rich conservatives, on the other hand, oppose immigration under the guise of 'law and order' and to lower social expenditures – despite that fact that they all use imported nannies, tutors, nurses, doctors and gardeners to service their families. Their servants can always be deported when convenient.

    The pro and anti-immigrant issue avoids the root cause for the economic exploitation and social degradation of the working class – the billionaire owners operating in alliance with the political elite.

    In order to reverse the regressive tax practices and tax evasion, the low wage cycle and the spiraling death rates resulting from narcotics and other preventable causes, which profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical billionaires, class alliances need to be forged linking workers, consumers, pensioners, students, the disabled, the foreclosed homeowners, evicted tenants, debtors, the under-employed and immigrants as a unified political force.

    Sooner said than done, but never tried! Everything and everyone is at stake: life, health and happiness.

    conatus > , October 5, 2017 at 9:02 am GMT

    Ronald Reagan can be blamed for the excess of billionaires we now have. His lauding of the entrepreneurial spirit and how we are all brave individual risk takers makes it seem you are an envious chickensh$t if you advocate against unlimited assets.

    But even Warren Buffet has come out for the estate tax saying something like now the Forbes 400 now possesses total assets of 2.5 trillion in a 20 trillion economy when 40 years ago they totaled in the millions. The legal rule against perpetuities generally used to limit trusts to a lifetime of 100 years, now some states offer 1000 year trusts which will only concretize an outlandishly high Gini coefficient(a measure of income inequality).
    The rationale for lowering taxes and the untouchable rich is usually the trickle down theory but, as one of these billionaires said, "How many pairs of pants can I buy?" It takes 274 years spending 10,000 a day to spend a billion dollars.
    Better Henry Ford's virtuous circle than Ronald Reagan's entrepreneur.
    Ban all billionaires. Bring back the union label. Otherwise .. what do we have to lose?

    http://nobillionairescom.dotster.com/

    jacques sheete > , October 5, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

    @Wally "According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458 billion dollars in lost public revenues every year – almost a trillion dollars every two years by this conservative estimate."

    No, it's $458 billion that the government has not managed to steal.

    https://www.ronpaul.com/taxes/


    An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent.

    Tellingly, "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
    To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending

    "We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don't need to "replace" the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better."

    https://youtu.be/qI5lC4Z_T80

    No, it's $458 billion that the government has not managed to steal.

    There was a time that I would have agreed with that, and technically still get the point, but what it really means is that the government merely allows the corporations which they favor, subsidize, and bail out to keep the chump change they've stolen from the workers, besides that which the government steals from the workers and hands to the corporations.

    Corporations and government work hand in hand to fleece the herd and most of the herd apparently think it's just fine.

    Never forget that thanks to government, corporations socialize risk while privatizing profit. They are partners in gangsterism.

    advancedatheist > , October 5, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

    Private, exclusive clinics and top medical care include the most advanced treatment and safe and proven medication which allow billionaires and their family members to live longer and healthier lives.

    Sorry, I don't buy the notion that billionaires have access to some super-healthcare that the rest of us don't know about. In the real world rich people notoriously waste a lot of money on quackery, like the current fad of receiving plasma transfusions from young people as a phony "anti-aging" treatment.

    More likely the kinds of men who become billionaires just enjoy better health and longevity for genetic reasons. They tend to have higher IQ's, for example, and some scientists think that IQ correlates with "system integrity" in their bodies which just make higher IQ people more resilient. Look up the growing body of research on cognitive epidemiology.

    anonymous > , Disclaimer October 5, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

    I'm disappointed there was no mention of the "Billionaires" use of social media. They've always controlled the press of course: startin' wars, hatin' on those guys, gettin' the blood up, jailin' the 'bad guys', preaching an empty delusion of social justice propaganda, payin' Ken Burns to propagandize and put a new coat of paint on the industrial scale killing of Vietnam. Probably just in time for more violence.

    Let's face it, many of the workin' stiff will blow a hedge fund manager and kneel before the so-called free market corpse of Sam Walton but most importantly they'll grab their guns outa' patriotic fervor and social media will be right there with 'em. "I love Elon Musk!"

    It's a great thing we're watched and datamined for our own good – information is how billionaires became billionaires along with a lot of help from the Government they usually encourage you to dislike. Keep posting!

    MarkinLA > , October 5, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT

    Rich conservatives, on the other hand, oppose immigration under the guise of 'law and order' and to lower social expenditures – despite that fact that they all use imported nannies, tutors, nurses, doctors and gardeners to service their families. Their servants can always be deported when convenient.

    BZZZZ – wrong. Rich conservative support massive immigration so they can get cheap labor while simutaneously virtue signaling. I thought you just got done sayiong they don't pay for the costs of the working poor? The middle class is who is against immigratioin. They bear the burden and pay the taxes that support it.

    [Oct 05, 2017] Opinion cultivation is a mass comms topic. You can look up the spiral of silence, which was theorized in the 1970s as self-censorship by people who hold minority opinions, or think they do.

    Notable quotes:
    "... TAC is an odd place, I post comments and for some reason every single comment I post on the U.S. state Dept. never gets published while every other comment I write does and I cannot fathom why. ..."
    "... Many comment sections of political and "news" sites are tightly curated. They offer the illusion of open discussion but in fact limit the scope of what discussion points are allowed. ..."
    "... From a PR/opinion cultivation perspective the goal is to keep those points or positions from appearing before other commenters and readers, thus validating their existence. Or such points or positions are allowed through on a very irregular or rare basis, which leaves the impression that they are extreme. ..."
    "... Opinion cultivation is a mass comms topic. You can look up the "spiral of silence," which was theorized in the 1970s as self-censorship by people who hold minority opinions, or think they do. ..."
    "... What we have today is the systematic creation of "spiral of silence" by the media that tout themselves as giving voice to opinions/positions/facts. They silence views at odds with the ones they want to sell, with the intention that their viewers/readers will self-censor. ..."
    Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Olorin says: October 3, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    @Chris Chuba

    I'm sorry to hear that you were removed from TAC. I do not believe that you should tailor you writings to make them pro-Israeli / Jewish if that does not represent your views. If I find an article unappealing I just skip it, I don't want to see it censored and I don't assume bad intentions on people just because they pursue a theory I don't agree with. To judge if someone is out-of-bounds perhaps we should apply the 'Iran test', replace Israel/Jewish with Iran/Iranian and see if people would still take offense (being a bit facetious, nothing would be out-of-bounds).

    TAC is an odd place, I post comments and for some reason every single comment I post on the U.S. state Dept. never gets published while every other comment I write does and I cannot fathom why.

    The pattern goes like this.

    1. Larison writes how Tillerson is gutting the U.S. State Dept. budget and this is wrecking U.S. diplomacy.
    2. I post a comment asking why that's a bad thing because 60%+ of the budget goes for 'soft power', funding NGO's to influence and/or meddle in other countries. Lindsey Graham even said, 'that's our soft power'.

    This is like Groundhog Day, I've tried posting several versions of this comment thinking that I inadvertently said something inflammatory. I've stopped commenting on any article having to do with this topic.

    Maybe I'm wrong, I'm fallible but I don't see how my comment is out of bounds, I'm baffled.

    TAC is an odd place, I post comments and for some reason every single comment I post on the U.S. state Dept. never gets published while every other comment I write does and I cannot fathom why.

    Many comment sections of political and "news" sites are tightly curated. They offer the illusion of open discussion but in fact limit the scope of what discussion points are allowed.

    From a PR/opinion cultivation perspective the goal is to keep those points or positions from appearing before other commenters and readers, thus validating their existence. Or such points or positions are allowed through on a very irregular or rare basis, which leaves the impression that they are extreme.

    Opinion cultivation is a mass comms topic. You can look up the "spiral of silence," which was theorized in the 1970s as self-censorship by people who hold minority opinions, or think they do.

    What we have today is the systematic creation of "spiral of silence" by the media that tout themselves as giving voice to opinions/positions/facts. They silence views at odds with the ones they want to sell, with the intention that their viewers/readers will self-censor.

    This is related to the 1970s to 1980s field of "cultivation theory" out of the Annenberg School (Penn). In that case, Jewish scholars at a majority Jewish department commenting on disproportionately Jewish-run media networks/outlets and Jewish-created programming concluded that rank-and-file white Americans were stupid for thinking the world was mean and dangerous based on what they saw on television.

    (The findings/research claim held that more hours of TV viewing led to people thinking crime rates were higher than they actually were. I don't call whether the converse was true, i.e., no TV viewing led to underestimate of crime rates, or what.)

    There was some truth in the cultivation theory framing–George Gerbner left communist Hungary, IIRC–but the whole thing struck me overall as an effort to ridicule white men and women for a) trusting the media and b) perceiving that their culture was going shall we say down the tubes. The real data were the actual crime rates and why the MSM didn't report those, nor on the demographics of them.

    In any case, the researchers were suffering from confirmation bias at least as strongly as their human subjects were, IMO.

    [Oct 04, 2017] The Trump-Goldman Sachs Tax Cut for the Rich by Jack Rasmus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Trump Plan is actually the product of the former Goldman-Sachs investment bankers who have been in charge of Trump's economic policy since he came into office. Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, and Gary Cohn, director of Trump's economic council, are the two authors of the Trump tax cuts. They put it together. They are also both former top executives of the global shadow bank called Goldman Sachs. ..."
    "... Given that economic policy under Trump is being driven by bankers, it's not surprising that the CEO of the biggest US banks, Morgan Stanley, admitted just a few months ago that a reduction of the corporate nominal income tax rate from the current 35% nominal rate to a new nominal rate of 20% will provide the bank an immediate windfall gain of 15%-20% in earnings. ..."
    "... Big multinational companies like Apple, i.e. virtually all the big tech companies, big Pharma corporations, banks and oil companies, pay no more than 12-13% effective tax rates today -- not the 35% nominal rate. ..."
    "... Tech, big Pharma, banks and oil companies are the big violators of offshore cash hoarding/tax avoidance schemes. Microsoft's effective global tax rate last year was only 12%. IBM's even less, at 10%. The giant drug company, Pfizer paid 18% and the oil company, Chevron 14%. One of the largest US companies in the world, General Electric, paid only 1%. When their nominal rate is reduced to 20% under the Trump plan, they'll pay even less, likely in the single digits, if that. ..."
    "... Tax cutting for business classes and the 1% has always been a fundamental element of Neoliberal economic policy ever since the Reagan years (and actually late Jimmy Carter period). Major tax cut legislation occurred in 1981, 1986, and 1997-98 under Clinton. George W. Bush then cut taxes by $3.4 trillion in 2001-04, 80% of which went to the wealthiest households and businesses. He cut taxes another $180 billion in 2008. Obama cut another $300 billion in his 2009 so-called recovery program. When that faltered, it was another $800 billion at year end 2010. He then extended the Bush tax cuts that were scheduled to expire in 2011 two more years. That costs $450 billion each year. And in 2013, cutting a deal with Republicans called the 'fiscal cliff' settlement, he extended the Bush tax cuts of the prior decade for another ten years. That cost a further $5 trillion. Now Trump wants even more. He promised $5 trillion in tax cuts during his election campaign. So the current proposal is only half of what he has in mind perhaps. ..."
    "... Neoliberal tax cutting in the US has also been characterized by the 'tax cut shell game'. The shell game is played several ways. ..."
    "... To cover the shell game, an overlay of ideology covers up what's going on. There's the false argument that 'tax cuts create jobs', for which there's no empirical evidence. There's the claim US multinational corporations pay a double tax compared to their competitors, when in fact they effectively pay less. There's the lie that if corporate taxes are cut they will automatically invest the savings, when in fact what they do is invest offshore, divert the savings to stock and bond and other financial markets, boost their dividend and stock buybacks, or stuff the savings in their offshore subsidiaries to avoid paying taxes. ..."
    "... All these neoliberal false claims, arguments, and outright lies continue today to justify the Trump-Goldman Sachs tax plan -- which is just the latest iteration of neoliberal tax policy and tax offensive in the US. The consequences of the Trump plan, if it is passed, will be the same as the previous tax giveaways to the 1% and their companies: it will redistribute income massively from the middle and working classes to the rich. Income inequality will continue to worsen dramatically. ..."
    "... Nothing will change so long as the Corporate Party of America is allowed to continue its neoliberal tax giveaways, its tax cutting 'shell games', and is allowed to continue to foment its ideological cover up. ..."
    Oct 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    Contradicting Trump, the independent Tax Policy Center has estimated in just the first year half of the $2 trillion plus Trump cuts will go to the wealthiest 1% households that annually earn more than $730,000. That's an immediate income windfall to the wealthiest 1% households of 8.5%, according to the Tax Policy Center. But that's only in the first of ten years the cuts will be in effect. It gets worse over time.

    According to the Tax Policy Center, "Taxpayers in the top one percent (incomes above $730,000), would receive about 50 percent of the total tax benefit [in 2018]". However, "By 2027, the top one percent would get 80 percent of the plan's tax cuts while the share for middle-income households would drop to about five percent." By the last year of the cuts, 2027, on average the wealthiest 1% household would realize $207,000, and the even wealthier 0.1% would realize an income gain of $1,022,000.

    When confronted with these facts on national TV this past Sunday, Trump's Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, quickly backtracked and admitted he could not guarantee every middle class family would see a tax cut. Right. That's because 15-17 million (12%) of US taxpaying households in the US will face a tax hike in the first year of the cuts. In the tenth and last year, "one in four middle class families would end up with higher taxes".

    The US Economic 'Troika'

    The Trump Plan is actually the product of the former Goldman-Sachs investment bankers who have been in charge of Trump's economic policy since he came into office. Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary, and Gary Cohn, director of Trump's economic council, are the two authors of the Trump tax cuts. They put it together. They are also both former top executives of the global shadow bank called Goldman Sachs. Together with the other key office determining US economic policy, the US central bank, held by yet another ex-Goldman Sachs senior exec, Bill Dudley, president of the New York Federal Reserve bank, the Goldman-Sachs trio of Mnuchin-Cohn-Dudley constitute what might be called the 'US Troika' for domestic economic policy.
    The Trump tax proposal is therefore really a big bankers tax plan -- authored by bankers, in the interest of bankers and financial investors (like Trump himself), and overwhelmingly favoring the wealthiest 1%.

    Given that economic policy under Trump is being driven by bankers, it's not surprising that the CEO of the biggest US banks, Morgan Stanley, admitted just a few months ago that a reduction of the corporate nominal income tax rate from the current 35% nominal rate to a new nominal rate of 20% will provide the bank an immediate windfall gain of 15%-20% in earnings. And that's just the nominal corporate rate cut proposed by Trump. With loopholes, it's no doubt more.

    The Trump-Troika's Triple Tax-Cut Trifecta for the 1%

    The Trump Troika has indicated it hopes to package up and deliver the trillions of $ to their 1% friends by Christmas 2017. Their gift will consist of three major tax cuts for the rich and their businesses. A Trump-Troika Tax Cut 'Trifecta' of $ trillions.

    1.The Corporate Tax Cuts

    The first of the three main elements is a big cut in the corporate income tax nominal rate, from current 35% to 20%. In addition, there's the elimination of what is called the 'territorial tax' system, which is just a fancy phrase for ending the fiction of the foreign profits tax. Currently, US multinational corporations hoard a minimum of $2.6 trillion of profits offshore and refuse to pay US taxes on those profits. In other words, Congress and presidents for decades have refused to enforce the foreign profits tax. Now that fiction will be ended by officially eliminating taxes on their profits. They'll only pay taxes on US profits, which will create an even greater incentive for them to shift operations and profits to their offshore subsidiaries. But there's more for the big corporations.

    The Trump plan also simultaneously proposes what it calls a 'repatriation tax cut'. If the big tech, pharma, banks, and energy companies bring back some of their reported $2.6 trillion (an official number which is actually more than that), Congress will require they pay only a 10% tax rate -- not the current 35% rate or even Trump's proposed 20%–on that repatriated profits. No doubt the repatriation will be tied to some kind of agreement to invest the money in the US economy. That's how they'll sell it to the American public. But that shell game was played before, in 2004-05, under George W. Bush. The same 'repatriation' deal was then legislated, to return the $700 billion then stuffed away in corporate offshore subsidiaries. About half the $700 billion was brought back, but US corporations did not invest it in jobs in the US as they were supposed to. They used the repatriated profits to buy up their competitors (mergers and acquisitions), to pay out dividends to stockholders, and to buy back their stock to drive equity prices and the stock market to new heights in 2005-07. The current Trump 'territorial tax repeal/repatriation' boondoggle will turn out just the same as it did in 2005.

    2. Non-Incorporate Business Tax Cuts

    The second big business class tax windfall in the Trump-Goldman Sachs tax giveaway for the rich is the proposal to reduce the top nominal tax rate for non-corporate businesses, like proprietorships and partnerships, whose business income (aka profits) is treated like personal income. This is called the 'pass through business income' provision.

    That's a Trump tax cut for unincorporated businesses -- like doctors, law firms, real estate investment partnerships, etc. 40% of non-corporate income is currently taxed at 39.6% (the top personal income tax rate). Trump proposes to reduce that nominal rate to 25%. So non-incorporate businesses too will get an immediately 14.6% cut, nearly matching the 15% rate cut for corporate businesses.

    In the case of both corporate and non-corporate companies we're talking about 'nominal' tax rate cuts of 14.6% and 15%. The 'effective' tax rate is what they actually pay in taxes -- i.e. after loopholes, after their high paid tax lawyers take a whack at their tax bill, after they cleverly divert their income to their offshore subsidiaries and refuse to pay the foreign profits tax, and after they stuff away whatever they can in offshore tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, and a dozen other island nations worldwide.

    For example, Apple Corporation alone is hoarding $260 billion in cash at present -- 95% of which it keeps offshore to avoid paying Uncle Sam taxes. Big multinational companies like Apple, i.e. virtually all the big tech companies, big Pharma corporations, banks and oil companies, pay no more than 12-13% effective tax rates today -- not the 35% nominal rate.

    Tech, big Pharma, banks and oil companies are the big violators of offshore cash hoarding/tax avoidance schemes. Microsoft's effective global tax rate last year was only 12%. IBM's even less, at 10%. The giant drug company, Pfizer paid 18% and the oil company, Chevron 14%. One of the largest US companies in the world, General Electric, paid only 1%. When their nominal rate is reduced to 20% under the Trump plan, they'll pay even less, likely in the single digits, if that.

    Corporations and non-corporate businesses are the institutional conduit for passing income to their capitalist owners and managers. The Trump corporate and business taxes means companies immediately get to keep at least 15% more of their income for themselves -- and more in 'effective' rate terms. That means they get to distribute to their executives and big stockholders and partners even more than they have in recent years. And in recent years that has been no small sum. For example, just corporate dividend payouts and stock buybacks have totaled more than $1 trillion on average for six years since 2010! A total of more than $6 trillion.

    But all that's only the business tax cut side of the Trump plan. There's a third major tax cut component of the Trump plan -- i.e. major cuts in the Personal Income Tax that accrue overwhelmingly to the richest 1% households.

    3. Personal Income Tax Cuts for the 1%

    There are multiple measures in the Trump-Troika proposal that benefits the 1% in the form of personal income tax reductions. Corporations and businesses get to keep more income from the business tax cuts, to pass on to their shareholders, investors, and senior managers. The latter then get to keep more of what's passed through and distributed to them as a result of the personal income tax cuts.

    The first personal tax cut boondoggle for the 1% wealthiest households is the Trump proposal to reduce the 'tax income brackets' from seven to three. The new brackets would be 35%, 25%, and 12%.

    Whenever brackets are reduced, the wealthiest always benefit. The current top bracket, affecting households with a minimum of $418,000 annual income, would be reduced from the current 39.6% to 35%. In the next bracket, those with incomes of 191,000 to 418,000 would see their tax rate (nominal again) cut from 28% to 25%. However, the 25% third bracket would apply to annual incomes as low as $38,000. That's the middle and working class. So households with $38,000 annual incomes would pay the same rate as those with more than $400,000. Tax cuts for the middle class, did Trump say? Only tax rate reductions beginning with those with $191,000 incomes and the real cuts for those over $418,000!

    But the cuts in the nominal tax rate for the top 1% to 5% households are only part of the personal income tax windfall for the rich under the Trump plan. The really big tax cuts for the 1% come in the form of the repeal of the Inheritance Tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax, as well as Trump's allowing the 'carried interest' tax loophole for financial speculators like hedge fund managers and private equity CEOs to continue.

    The current Inheritance Tax applies only to those with estates of $11 million or more, about 0.2 of all the taxpaying households. So its repeal is clearly a windfall for the super rich. The Alternative Minimum Tax is designed to ensure the super rich pay something, after they manipulate the tax loopholes, shelter their income offshore in tax havens, or simply engage in tax fraud by various other means. Now that's gone as well under the Trump plan. 'Carried interest', a loophole, allows big finance speculators, like hedge fund managers, to avoid paying the corporate tax rate altogether, and pay a maximum of 20% on their hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of dollars of income every year.
    Who Pays?

    As previously noted, folks with $91,000 a year annual income get no tax rate cuts. They still will pay the 25%. And since that is what's called 'earned' (wage and salary) income, they don't get the loopholes to manipulate, like those with 'capital incomes' (dividends, capital gains, rents, interest, etc.). What they get is called deductions. But under the Trump plan, the deductions for state and local taxes, for state sales taxes, and apparently for excess medical costs will all disappear. The cost of that to middle and working class households is estimated at $1 trillion over the decade.

    Trump claims the standard deduction will be doubled, and that will benefit the middle class. But estimates reveal that a middle class family with two kids will see their standard deduction reduced from $28,900 to $24,000. But I guess that's just 'Trump math'.

    The general US taxpayer will also pay for the trillions of dollars that will be redistributed to the 1% and their companies. It's estimated the federal government deficit will increase by $2.4 trillion over the decade as a result of the Trump plan. Republicans in Congress have railed over the deficits and federal debt, now at $20 trillion, for years. But they are conspicuously quiet now about adding $2.4 trillion more -- so long as it the result of tax giveaways to themselves, their 1% friends, and their rich corporate election campaign contributors.

    And both wings of the Corporate Party of America -- aka Republicans and Democrats -- never mention the economic fact that since 2001, 60% of US federal government deficits, and therefore the US debt of $20 trillion, are attributable to tax cuts by George W. Bush and Barack Obama: more than $3.5 trillion under Bush and more than $7 trillion under Obama. (The remaining $10 trillion of the US debt due to war and defense spending, price gouging by the medical industry and big pharma driving up government costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance, bailouts of the big banks in 2008-09, and interest payments on the debt).

    The 35-Year Neoliberal Tax Offensive

    Tax cutting for business classes and the 1% has always been a fundamental element of Neoliberal economic policy ever since the Reagan years (and actually late Jimmy Carter period). Major tax cut legislation occurred in 1981, 1986, and 1997-98 under Clinton. George W. Bush then cut taxes by $3.4 trillion in 2001-04, 80% of which went to the wealthiest households and businesses. He cut taxes another $180 billion in 2008. Obama cut another $300 billion in his 2009 so-called recovery program. When that faltered, it was another $800 billion at year end 2010. He then extended the Bush tax cuts that were scheduled to expire in 2011 two more years. That costs $450 billion each year. And in 2013, cutting a deal with Republicans called the 'fiscal cliff' settlement, he extended the Bush tax cuts of the prior decade for another ten years. That cost a further $5 trillion. Now Trump wants even more. He promised $5 trillion in tax cuts during his election campaign. So the current proposal is only half of what he has in mind perhaps.

    Neoliberal tax cutting in the US has also been characterized by the 'tax cut shell game'. The shell game is played several ways.

    In the course of major tax cut legislation, the elites and their lobbyists alternate their focus on cutting rates and on correcting tax loopholes. They raise rates but expand loopholes. When the public becomes aware of the outrageous loopholes, they then eliminate some loopholes but simultaneously reduce the tax rates on the rich. When the public complains of too low tax rates for the rich, they raise the rates but quietly expand the loopholes. They play this shell game so the outcome is always a net gain for corporations and the rich.

    Since Reagan and the advent of neoliberal tax policy, the corporate income tax share of total US government revenues has fallen from more than 20% to single digits well below 10%. Conversely, the payroll tax has doubled from 22% to more than 40%. A similar shift within the personal income tax, steadily around 40% of government revenues, has also occurred. The wealthy pay less a share of the total and the middle class pays more. Along the way, token concessions to the very low end of working poor are introduced, to give the appearance of fairness. But the middle class, the $38 to $91,000 nearly 100 million taxpaying households foot the bill for both the 1% and the bottom. This pattern was set in motion under Reagan. His proposed $752 billion in tax cuts in 1981-82 were adjusted in 1986, but the net outcome was more for the rich and their corporations. That pattern has continued under Clinton, Bush, Obama and now proposed under Trump.

    To cover the shell game, an overlay of ideology covers up what's going on. There's the false argument that 'tax cuts create jobs', for which there's no empirical evidence. There's the claim US multinational corporations pay a double tax compared to their competitors, when in fact they effectively pay less. There's the lie that if corporate taxes are cut they will automatically invest the savings, when in fact what they do is invest offshore, divert the savings to stock and bond and other financial markets, boost their dividend and stock buybacks, or stuff the savings in their offshore subsidiaries to avoid paying taxes.

    All these neoliberal false claims, arguments, and outright lies continue today to justify the Trump-Goldman Sachs tax plan -- which is just the latest iteration of neoliberal tax policy and tax offensive in the US. The consequences of the Trump plan, if it is passed, will be the same as the previous tax giveaways to the 1% and their companies: it will redistribute income massively from the middle and working classes to the rich. Income inequality will continue to worsen dramatically. US multinational corporations will begin again to divert profits, and investment, offshore; profits brought back untaxed will result in mergers and acquisitions, dividend payouts, and financial markets investment. No real jobs will be created in the US. The wealthy will continue to pump their savings into financial asset markets, causing further bubbles in stocks, exchange traded funds, bonds, derivatives and the like. The US economy will continue to slow and become more unstable financially. And there will be another financial crash and great recession -- or worse. Only this time, the vast majority of US households -- i.e. the middle and working classes -- will be even worse off and more unable to weather the next economic storm.

    Nothing will change so long as the Corporate Party of America is allowed to continue its neoliberal tax giveaways, its tax cutting 'shell games', and is allowed to continue to foment its ideological cover up. More articles by: Jack Rasmus

    Jack Rasmus is the author of ' Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy ', Clarity Press, 2015. He blogs at jackrasmus.com . His website is www.kyklosproductions.com and twitter handle, @drjackrasmus.

    [Oct 04, 2017] Today, the main enemy is not aliens; it's division -- between rich and poor, white and black, educated and less educated, right and left. Where there is division there are fences. Mobility is retarded and the frontier is destroyed

    Oct 04, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    But how "American" is the Brooks view, encapsulated in the sentence "The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe. We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles, attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity"? Brooks holds up the American territorial frontier as a hallmark of this ethos and of the American identity.

    There are two problems with this. First, this conception of what it means to be American has propelled the nation into a lot of folly, heartache, and international treachery. Consider the implications of "founded on universal principles active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity." Almost word for word, that's what was said when the United States invaded Iraq, and how did that turn out? It unleashed a spate of instability and violence in that country that have generated more than 175,000 civilian deaths.

    Secondly, Brooks' description of the essence of the American identity is false. His invocation of America's frontier -- as a proxy also for the country's "technological, scientific, social and human frontiers" -- misses a fundamental reality of the American story. America was in fact a tribal enterprise.

    Brooks would have us believe that the United States began as a pristine crusader state on behalf of global democracy and internationalism, a "universal nation" devoted to "diverse hopefulness" as opposed to "fear-driven homogeneity." No, the people who ventured onto these shores and then pushed westward inexorably were highly conscious not only of their religious provenance but also of their cultural and ethnic heritage. They brutally pushed aside the aboriginal peoples, declined to mix with them, and created societies that mirrored those of the Old Country, even naming their towns and cities after those inhabited by their overseas ancestors.

    As more and more people arrived from places removed from the English Motherland and other English-speaking regions (but almost entirely from Europe), those newcomers were abjured to accept the established Anglo-Saxon elite and bend to its mores and sensibilities. In return the elite gave the nation a relatively gentle and more or less disinterested stewardship based on a strong sense of national service inculcated at WASP prep schools and universities such as Yale and Harvard.

    No one expressed more forcefully than Theodore Roosevelt this sentiment that newcomers must assimilate into prevailing American culture, for that culture had no intention of adjusting to the newcomers. "We freely extend the hand of welcome and good fellowship to every man," wrote Roosevelt, "no matter what his creed and birthplace, who comes here honestly intent on becoming a good United States citizen like the rest of us; but we have a right, and it is our duty, to demand that he shall indeed become so, and shall not confuse the issues with which we are struggling by introducing among us Old-World quarrels and prejudices."

    As late as the early postwar period, the elite represented by Roosevelt still dominated many of America's major national institutions -- the big banks, the media, the universities, the foreign policy apparatus. Extensive academic treatment has been given to the ways by which the waning Anglo-Saxon elite of America, still dominating foreign policy at the end of World War II, created the postwar global structure that maintained stability for decades throughout the world.

    But there were frictions, of course, as new arrivals began to chafe under America's ancient elite, and most of it was tribal. When the Irish of Boston reached such numbers that they could upend the old WASP establishment of that city, it was tribal. When American Jews thrilled to the creation of Israel and sought to bend U.S. policy toward today's special relationship, it was tribal. Ethnic politics is tribal politics, and ethnic politics has become an ever more powerful force within the American polity.

    Brooks is not wrong when he says that much of the Trump constituency is driven by tribal impulses. But he is wrong to say that these sensibilities are un-American and the result of bigotry. Tribalism is a part of the American story, and Brooks can't shame it away. That he wants to is encapsulated in this paragraph:

    Today, the main enemy is not aliens; it's division -- between rich and poor, white and black, educated and less educated, right and left. Where there is division there are fences. Mobility is retarded and the frontier is destroyed. Trumpist populists want to widen the divisions and rearrange the fences. They want to turn us into an old, settled and fearful nation.

    Aha, the true Brooks herein steps forward. It is the Trump constituency that is responsible for all the divisions between rich and poor, white and black, educated and less educated, right and left. He doesn't quite call these people deplorable, but he comes close. If they would just stand down and give up their tribal ways, we could get back to being the America of our past and our heritage -- a "universal nation" drawing unlimited immigrants to our shores in the service of a national mission to spread "democracy and dignity" around the world. Sounds like a return to George W. Bush.

    This is policy folly based upon a myth of America. The divisions Brooks laments with such invidious intent won't vanish until the fears and concerns of Trump voters are addressed in ways that can alleviate, at least to some extent, those grievances. That's a reality that David Brooks, for all his clever locutions, can't wish away.

    Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

    [Oct 04, 2017] Living Under the French Hate Speech Laws by Lawrence G. Proulx

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lawrence G. Proulx is a retired copy editor who worked for more than 30 years at the Washington Times, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune and International New York Times. ..."
    Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    What infractions must a speaker or writer or editor or publisher avoid in order to stay within the law in France? Here are the basics, as discussed in the manual "Droits des journalistes et liberté d'expression" by Bernard Dapogny and Marion Dapogny:

    False news, "made in bad faith, that disturbs the public order or is capable of disturbing it." Use of a false document in reporting. Attempt to harm the discipline or morale of the armed forces or to hinder a war effort. Defamation. Insult. [The distinction between this and the preceding is that defamation must assert something specific, whereas insult can be merely an offensive word.] Attempt to harm a person's honor or reputation. Defamation of or insult to the judiciary, the military services, various other public bodies including "junior high schools, high schools, universities, the Legion of Honor" as well as "local administrations, the police, hospitals, penitentiaries." Defamation of or insult to persons acting in a position of public authority, including "representatives and senators, ministers and Secretaries of State" as well as "police personnel, magistrates, teachers." Defamation or insult based on race, religion or belonging to an ethnic group or a nation. Defamation or insult based on sex, sexual orientation or handicap. Defamation of or insult to deceased persons, where the offense touches on the honor of the heirs or close survivors. Provocation to the commission of a crime which leads to the crime. Provocation to the commission of a crime which doesn't lead to the crime. Indirect provocation (apology), that is, stating that certain crimes were justified, including "war crimes, crimes against humanity or crimes in collaboration with the enemy." Provocation to hate, violence or discrimination, which could be based on a person's "origin, sex, family situation, state of pregnancy, physical appearance, family name, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, morals, sexual orientation, age, opinions, politics, labor union activity, belonging or not belonging, real or supposed to a particular ethnic group, nation, race or religion." Provocation to or apology for terrorism. Contesting "the existence of one or several crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6 of the charter of the International Military Tribunal [the Nuremberg Tribunal] annexed to the London Agreement of August 6, 1945, and which were committed by the members of an organization declared criminal in application of Article 9 of the said charter, by a person recognized as guilty of such crimes by a French jurisdiction or by an international one." Enacted in July 1990 and called the Gayssot Law. Offending the president of the Republic. [This law was repealed in 2013.]

    Many of these laws are seldom invoked; others are used frequently. To put flesh on the matter, I offer you a list of cases from 2013 that I put together in 2014 for an article that never found a publisher. (Sorry, but the work of assembling it was too tedious for me to undertake it again, and I think the general impression given by more recent cases would not be different.) Although details of the offensive language are frequently omitted in the news reports from which this list is compiled, a quick look will give a sense of how routine the cases are.

    One thing should be mentioned first. An anti-racism law passed in July 1972, commonly called the Pleven Law, strengthened the restrictions on speech and granted to private associations dedicated to fighting racism the right to participate in the prosecution of criminal cases and to claim damages as well. Amendments to the law empowered additional categories of associations, for example, associations working "to defend the moral interests and the honor of veterans and victims of war and of those who died for France" or "to defend the memory of slaves and the honor of their descendants." Such associations are frequently the first to blow the whistle on remarks they consider violative, and because they have the standing to file complaints even when no particular person is targeted by the contested remarks, their legal recognition is an important factor in the number of cases brought before the courts today.

    2013 in Review

    January

    Marie-Josée Roig, the mayor of Avignon, files a complaint for public insults contained in a book purporting to be fiction ("Le Monarque, son fils, son fief") by Marie-Célie Guillaume in which a character who resembles Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president, demands a quick sexual "present" from a woman who resembles Roig.

    Daniel Boyer, the mayor of Châteaubernard, files a complaint for public insults after a wave of graffiti attacking him and various acts of vandalism.

    Frédéric Haziza, a Jewish journalist, files a complaint for public insult and public insult committed against a person because of his religion, after being attacked on the website of Alain Soral, a self-described anti-Zionist activist. Haziza had refused to invite Soral onto his show to discuss Soral's book "Comprendre l'empire" because of Soral's "clearly antisemitic" views.

    March

    A judge, Jean-Michel Gentil, files a complaint for contempt and insult against Henri Guaino, a deputy in Parliament, for having said that the judge "dishonored the [state] institutions and justice" after Sarkozy was interrogated on suspicion of abusing the weakness of a rich aged widow.

    Bloc Identitaire, a nationalist group, announces its intention to file a complaint for public insult against Yann Galut, a deputy from the Cher department, for having called the members of the bloc "casseurs" (protesters who destroy property) in a Twitter message.

    April

    Rama Yade, a former secretary of state for human rights and for sports, is found guilty of defamation and insult for eight of twenty-eight contested statements posted on her blog about a political opponent, Manuel Aeschlimann, after she was challenged over her domicile status in the Hauts-de-Seine department.

    May

    Yvan Benedetti and Alexandre Gabriac, right-wing activists, file a complaint against Jean-François Carenco, the prefect of Lyon, and Albert Doutre, director of public security, for "hateful" public insults (such as "imbecilities" and "thugs") made during the containment of a nationalist youth protest in front of the Socialist Party local headquarters.

    June

    The city of Angers files suit against a shopkeeper for public insult in the form of signs he put up to protest a proposed tax on businesses that serve clients on the sidewalk, which followed among other things a police check of whether he was serving alcohol without the proper license.

    Pierre Dubois, the mayor of Roubaix, and the Human Rights League file a complaint against an unnamed man who, during the course of a heated discussion at a public meeting, suggested that the Roma (Gypsies) be sent to Auschwitz.

    July

    Sylvie Goy-Chavent, a senator of the Ain department who prepared a report on the security of meat production in France, files a complaint against a website, Internet JSSNews.com, which describes itself as a webzine of Israeli opinion, for calling her such things as "bitch" and "little shit" and writing, among other things, "Goy, she wears her name well."

    September

    The Union of Jewish Students of France says it will file a complaint against the weekly magazine Valeurs Actuelles for provocation of racial or religious discrimination, hatred or violence. The group describes the cover of the magazine's Sept. 26 issue, which shows a white bust of a woman representing France wearing a black Islamic veil and bearing the title "Naturalized: The Invasion They're Hiding," as "racist" and "hateful." The magazine says in return that it will file a complaint against the group for calumnious denunciation, defamation and attack on freedom of expression.

    The Foundation for the Memorial of the Black Slave Trade, along with the Federation of African Associations, the National Union of Overseas France, and other organizations and individual citizens file a complaint against Jean-Sebastien Vialatte, a deputy in Parliament, for public insult, defamation and incitement of racial hatred and racial discrimination, for his remarks after vandalism occurred during a celebration of the Paris Saint-Germain soccer team. He had sent a Twitter message in which he said sardonically that "the people who vandalize are surely descendants of slaves, they have excuses[.] #Taubira [the justice minister] will give them some compensation!"

    October

    The League for the Judicial Defense of Muslims files a complaint against the weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo for its July 10 cover which had a cartoon captioned in large letters with "The Koran, it's shit; it doesn't stop bullets"; against the magazine Valeurs Actuelles for its Sept. 26 cover; against the website Riposte Laïque for various articles; and against Manuel Valls, the secretary of the interior, for provocation of discrimination and hate, for saying, "Within ten years we will show, we are in the process of showing, there is a will, that Islam is compatible [sic] with the Republic."

    Bruno Gilles, a senator in the Union for a Popular Movement, files a complaint against a socialist, Patrick Mennucci, for "defamation and public insults." "He called me a racist and xenophobe," the senator said.

    France-El Djazaïr, a Franco-Algerian friendship association, announces that it will file a complaint against a police officer in the city of Alès for "insults and incitement to xenophobic and Islamophobic hatred"; the officer had put on his Facebook profile page a photo-montage representing the Algerian flag over which was written "I hate Algeria," attached to an image of a man wiping his bottom with the flag.

    Bachir Bouhmadou, adjunct general secretary of Citizen Resistance, and Ali Saab, president of the Association of Muslims of the Territory of Belfort, file a complaint against Christine Tasin, a militant with the group Republican Resistance, for videotaped comments opposing ritual Islamic butchery and criticizing Islam.

    Abdellah Zekri, the president of the National Observatory Against Islamophobia, says he will file a complaint after his house was defaced with swastikas and graffiti saying "Islam Out" and "Heit [sic] Hitler."

    The National Front says it will file a complaint against Christiane Taubira, the justice minister, for public insult for having described the party's way of thinking as "deadly and murderous" and summarizing it thus: "It's the blacks in the branches of the trees, the Arabs in the sea, the homosexuals in the Seine, the Jews in the oven and so forth."

    November

    A 65-year-old man is found guilty of insulting Claudine Ledoux, the mayor of Charleville-Mézières, on his website, l'Union-l'Ardennais, in a manner described by a regional newspaper as "menacing, racist and sexist," in relation to her being made a knight in the Legion of Honor; he is ordered to pay a fine of one thousand euros and damages for mental distress of the same amount to Ledoux.

    The association SOS Racisme says it will file a complaint for incitation to racial hatred against Minute, a 16-page rightist weekly, for its cover with a photo of Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, who is a native of French Guiana, and for the title "Clever Like a Monkey, Taubira Finds the Banana Again," which combines two common French expressions; to have the banana (or the peach) means to be full of energy.

    A player files a complaint for racial insult after a rough soccer game (three red cards) between the second-stringers of the Sablé and Lude clubs. A player explained: "This attacker called me a dirty white. I called him a dirty black."

    The Movement Against Racism and for the Amity of Peoples files a complaint for provocation of racial hatred against Manuel Valls, minister of the interior, for comments about the Gypsies including, "The Gypsies should stay in Romania or return there." The case will be dismissed in December 2013.

    Bob Dylan is put under formal investigation for insult and provocation of racial hatred after the Representative Council of the Croatian Community and Institutions of France files a complaint against both him and the magazine Rolling Stone, the French version of which republished an interview in which he said, "If you've got a slave master or the Klan in your blood, blacks can sense that. Just like Jews can sense Nazi blood and the Serbs can sense Croatian blood." The case will be dismissed in April 2014.

    December

    The comedian Nicolas Bedos testifies after being accused of complicity in making a public racial insult in an article in the magazine Marianne as well as on its website; among the phrases he used were "Negro bugger," "island indolence" and "lazy natives."

    Gérard Huet, the mayor of Loudéac, is sued by the Human Rights League for comments about Gypsies he made at a meeting to discuss expenditures to renovate the area where the Gypsies were living. "They've stolen all our plumbing," he says, and he later objects to the comment of another member of the city council with, "You're defending thieves?" He sues the league in return for harassment.

    The comedian Dieudonné files a defamation complaint after Alain Jakubowicz, the president of the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism, describes the "quenelle," a gesture used by the comedian and his fans, as "corresponding to an inverted Nazi salute signifying the sodomizing of the victims of the Holocaust." Dieudonné also says he will sue Le Monde, Le Figaro, BFMTV, France 2 and Manuel Valls, the interior minister.

    The imam Hicham El Barkani files a complaint for insult after a protest described as islamophobic against the opening of a mosque in Papeete.

    Historians on Trial

    Some cases have greater import than those listed above, as when historians are attacked for their work.

    The Columbia University historian Bernard Lewis gave an interview to Le Monde on November 16, 1993, in which he discussed the killings of Armenians by Turks during the First World War. In the course of it he said, "If one speaks of genocide, that implies that there was a deliberate policy, a decision, to systematically annihilate the Armenian nation. That is quite doubtful. Turkish documents prove a will of deportation, not of extermination." On January 1, 1994, in response to strong objections to his remarks, he published a further explanation of his position, again in Le Monde, ending with a repetition of his main point, that "no serious proof exists of a decision and a plan by the Ottoman government aiming at exterminating the Armenian nation." He was sued by the Forum of Armenian Associations of France and the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism on the claim that he had "gravely hurt the memory and respect of the survivors and of their families." The civil court of Paris ruled that Lewis had "failed to meet his duty of objectivity and prudence in expressing himself without nuance on so sensitive a subject" and ordered him to pay a franc each to the two associations as well as the cost of publishing the decision. Lewis was also the defendant in other civil cases and one criminal one on the same subject, all of which were dismissed.

    In 2001, the French Parliament "publicly recognized the Armenian genocide of 1915," and in 2012 the Parliament passed a law instituting a punishment of imprisonment for one year and a fine of 45,000 euros of anyone who "contests or minimizes in an outrageous fashion" genocides recognized as such by French law, but the Constitutional Council ruled the latter law unconstitutional a month later. Both of the main candidates for president that year, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande, soon announced that they would seek a new law to criminalize denial of the Armenian genocide, and in January 2017 a law took effect providing for a year of prison and a fine of 45,000 euros for those who denied, belittled or "banalized in an outrageous way" recognized genocides, crimes against humanity, and enslavement or exploitation of an enslaved person.

    In 2001 Parliament also passed a law recognizing "that the trans-Atlantic trade in Negroes as well as the trade in the Indian Ocean on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the slavery perpetrated starting in the 15th Century, in the Americas and the Caribbean, in the Indian Ocean and in Europe against the Africans, Amerindians, Madagascans and Indians constitute a crime against humanity." Four years later this law was invoked against Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, a professor at the University of Southern Brittany. In the course of an interview given on June 12, 2005, in relation to his book "Les traites négrières" (The Negro Slave Trades), which had won many awards including the Senate History Book Prize, Pétré-Grenouilleau rejected a comparison of the slave trades to the Jewish Holocaust: "The slave trades are not genocides. The slave trade didn't have the goal of exterminating a people. The slave was a good that had a market value that one wanted to make work as much as possible." An association representing people of the Caribbean, French Guiana and Réunion filed a complaint against him for denying a crime against humanity and demanded that he be "suspended from his university functions for revisionism." In the vehement debate that ensued, Pétré-Grenouilleau was strongly supported by many prominent historians, and in February 2006, acknowledging this opposition, the association withdrew its complaint.

    Shortly before the Pétré-Grenouilleau affair erupted, another "memorial" law had been passed, in January 2005, aimed generally at recognizing the suffering of those French citizens who had been repatriated from North Africa at the end of the Algerian War. This law had itself evoked controversy, by requiring that "school programs recognize in particular the positive role of the French presence overseas, notably in North Africa." A year later the law was emended and the "positive role" removed.

    Real Prison Sentences

    I know of only three writers who have recently been given sentences that were "fermes," as the French say, that is, that were not suspended as soon as pronounced. Vincent Reynouard is a Frenchman born in 1969 and trained as a chemical engineer who has argued that the Nazis had no plan to exterminate the Jews and that gas chambers were not used to kill people. Among the many videos he has placed on the Internet, there is one in which he expresses his admiration for Hitler; he says, "I think that Hitler was a man too good for the 20th Century, too honest, too straightforward." A month after being arrested in Belgium, Reynouard was extradited to France in August 2010 and served seven and a half months in prison for contesting a crime against humanity. He has continued to produce writings and Internet videos, and in February 2015 he was convicted of contestation of crimes against humanity and sentenced to two years in prison. In November 2016 he was given a five-months sentence for publishing two videos in which he stated that he would offer 5,000 euros to "anyone who can show me, in free, candid and courteous debate, that the homicidal Hitlerian gas chambers are not a myth of history." To avoid a return to prison, he is said to be living in England.

    Hervé Ryssen, according to Wikipedia, has been sentenced several times for his writings about Jews on counts, among others, of racial insult, racial defamation, defamation against a group of persons because of their belonging to a certain race, and incitation to racial hatred; and Boris Le Lay, who is living in Japan, has been sentenced in absentia many times, most recently in July this year to serve 32 months in prison and to pay 31,500 euros to the groups representing the supposed victims, for his writings judged to constitute incitement to discrimination and to racial hatred and violence, and to contain public racial insults. Among the recent charges against Le Lay was one of making death threats against activists of the Human Rights League; I have not been able to determine if he was convicted of this; if he was, he appears in that instance to be an exception to the other cases discussed in this article, which involve no violence or threat thereof.

    Politicians on Trial

    Although many speech cases involve politicians, two in particular deserve mention because they arguably played a role in the presidential election of 2007.

    The first round of the previous election, in 2002, had stunned the country as Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, edged out Lionel Jospin, the Socialist candidate, for a place in the second round. Le Pen's share of the first-round vote was only 16.9 percent, but Jospin was handicapped by an abundance of rivals on the left who split the vote. Before the second round, a broad denunciatory publicity campaign to block Le Pen took place, and his opponent, Jacques Chirac, the incumbent, refused to debate him. Chirac was re-elected with 82 percent of the vote.

    Before the next election, in 2007, both Le Pen and the party's second-ranking member, Bruno Gollnisch, would be defendants in high-profile cases over things they said.

    On January 7, 2005, the rightist weekly Rivarol published an interview in which Le Pen said: "In France, at least, the German occupation wasn't particularly inhumane, even if there were slip-ups, inevitable in a country of 550,000 square kilometers." He also related a story about a German lieutenant, "crazy with pain" after an attack on a train in which many young soldiers died, who he said would have shot up a village had the Gestapo not intervened. Various groups filed complaints, and in March an investigation was formally opened. In February 2008 he was found guilty of complicity in the contestation of crimes against humanity and complicity in apology for war crimes. In January 2009 the appeals court in Paris confirmed the verdict on the first count but threw out the war-crimes verdict. In April 2011 the Court of Cassation overturned the crimes-against-humanity verdict, and remanded the matter to the appeals court, which again found him guilty in February 2012, a judgment confirmed by the Court of Cassation in June 2013. Le Pen was sentenced to three months in prison (suspended) and assessed a fine of 10,000 euros, and the editor of Rivarol and the interviewer were fined 5,000 euros and 2,000 euros respectively. Three of the complainant groups were awarded damages of 5,000 euros each, and Rivarol was ordered to pay for the publication of the decision in Le Figaro.

    In the other case, Gollnisch, a professor of Japanese language and culture at the University of Lyon who at the time was director general of the National Front (before the ascension of Marine Le Pen), was charged with contestation of crimes against humanity for responses to a journalist's questions at a press conference in October 2004. No electronic recording was made, but he was quoted as saying: "There is no serious historian who accepts completely the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal; I think that the discussion should remain free concerning the drama of the concentration camps. The number of deaths, the manner in which the people died -- historians have the right to discuss. I don't deny that there were homicidal gas chambers, but the discussion should remain free." In 2006, before the verdict was rendered, he was suspended from his university post for five years.

    During the trial Gollnisch was questioned intensively for hours one day in November 2006 over his true beliefs on the matter, and the attorney examining him, Alain Jakubowicz, representing the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism, said he would withdraw from the case if Gollnisch would only admit "that the organized extermination of the Jews of Europe by the Nazi regime during the Second World War constitute an incontestable crime against humanity perpetrated notably by the use of gas chambers." According to Le Monde, Gollnisch appeared surprised and hesitated before giving an answer that might alienate the "hard fringe of his movement." Gollnisch replied, "Completely." Asked to repeat his answer, he said: "My answer is affirmative." He was convicted in January 2007, three months before the first round of the presidential election, and sentenced to serve three months in prison (suspended) and pay a fine of 5,000 euros. An appeals court in February 2008 confirmed the conviction and added fines totaling 39,000 euros to be paid to nine associations devoted to fighting racism or representing people deported from France during World War Two. But in June 2009 the Court of Cassation, judging that his contradictory remarks as presented to the court did not constitute contestation, overturned the verdict without possibility of retrial.

    However these cases might be viewed in relation to freedom of speech, they also merit attention from a purely political point of view. In the 2002 election, Jean-Marie Le Pen scored an upset in the first round; in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidency by, in the view of many commentators, "borrowing the discourse" and luring the voters of Le Pen's party. In between, both Le Pen and his righthand man were put on trial, to the accompaniment of much public commentary, on charges that suggested their approbation of Nazi atrocities. Under such circumstances, borrowing and luring may be much easier than would otherwise be the case.

    Censored Books

    In September 2013 the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism sought an injunction from a court in Bobigny to order the excision of passages from five books republished by Kontre Kulture, a publishing enterprise whose publication director is Alain Soral. David-Olivier Kaminski, an attorney for the league, described Soral as someone known as a "vector of hate" and characterized the re-editions as a "provocation, with the purpose of arousing tensions." The league also asked for 20,000 euros in damages for each of the five books.

    In November the court ordered the withdrawal from sale of one of the books, "L'Anthologie des propos contre les juifs, le judaïsme et le sionisme" by Paul-Eric Blanrue, which had originally been published by another publisher in 2007, and the removal of certain passages from the four others, all of which were reprints of books published long ago: "La France juive" by Edouard Drumont, "Le salut par les juifs" by Léon Bloy, "Le juif international" by Henry Ford, et "La controverse de Sion" by Douglas Reed. The court judged that the works constituted "insult toward a group of persons because of their belonging to a specific religion," "negation of crimes against humanity," and "provocation of racial hatred." Kontre Kulture and Soral were also ordered to pay 8,000 euros each to the league as well as a part of its legal expenses. In December 2014 a court overturned the previous ruling on the "Anthologie" and it was again allowed to be sold.

    The media reaction focused principally on the book by Léon Bloy. Bloy's great-grandchild, Alexis Galpérine, reminded readers in Le Figaro that Bloy was a "philosemite" and that "Le salut par les juifs" had been recommended as a "book against antisemitism" by Franz Kafka. Pierre Glaudes, a professor at the Sorbonne, wrote in the weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur: "This decision of justice arouses astonishment and disquiet by attacking a literary work that is 122 years old and has been republished several times without having attracted lightning strikes by justice. This condemnation sets a dangerous precedent. Why not censor 'The Merchant of Venice' by Shakespeare, 'Gobseck' by Balzac or 'Money' by Zola for their antisemitic statements?"

    Stage Show Blocked

    The case of the comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala merits notice particularly for the legal manner in which the performance of his show "The Wall" in Nantes was forbidden in January 2014.

    Dieudonné, the son of a Cameroonian man and a French woman, performed for several years early in his career with a Jewish partner, and their sketches often made fun of racism. Eventually he came to hold Jews responsible in large part for the slave trade, he expressed resentment at the attention given to the Holocaust in comparison with that given to the slavery, and he came to regard Jews not as fellow victims of prejudice but instead as important members of a power structure in which people of the Third World and of Third World origin are kept down. His new acts were sharply criticized, and he responded with provocations such as including Robert Faurisson, notorious as a denier of the Holocaust and gas chambers, in his acts. Dieudonné was found guilty of racial insult or defamation on numerous occasions, for example, for saying that a television host financed the Israeli Army, "which doesn't hesitate to kill Palestinian children"; for characterizing Holocaust remembrance as "memorial pornography"; for stating that the directors of a pro-Israeli website were trying to paint him as an antisemite and "son of Hitler"; for describing the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism as one of the "mafia-like associations that organize censorship, that deny all concepts of racism except that concerning the Jews. In fact, they are nothing but Israeli agents."

    Largely excluded from television and other standard venues, he has nonetheless maintained an enthusiastic and politically and racially mixed following through his stage shows and videos. In January 2014 his stage show "The Wall" was challenged by the government as a threat to public order and to the dignity of the human person. Its performance in Nantes was banned by the prefecture of the Loire-Atlantic region, which judged that it contained antisemitic remarks that would incite racial hatred and constitute an apology for discriminations, persecutions and exterminations perpetrated in the course of the Second World War. The ban was lifted on the day of the show by the region's administrative tribunal, which held that the show "could not be regarded as having as its essential purpose an affront at human dignity," but the tribunal's ruling was overturned and the ban reinstated later the same day by a judge of the Council of State, the highest court in the administrative-law system, after an urgent request by Interior Minister Manuel Valls.

    Conclusion

    French people in general seem content with the way free speech questions are handled. If in private they will occasionally murmur that "one can't say anything anymore," in public there is very little disagreement over the necessity of punishing infractions involving remarks characterized as racist or antisemitic or "negationist." Prominent cases, such as the many brought against Jean-Marie Le Pen, are approved, explicitly or implicitly, by the vast majority of commentators in the press and on the radio and television. Even publications that push the limits of public tolerance in other ways -- for example, with crude or even violently obscene and sacrilegious writings and cartoons -- do not defend the targets of anti-racism or anti-contestation laws on general free-speech grounds; quite the contrary.

    There is no high-profile organization or figure that publicly espouses the famous words that Voltaire apparently never really said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Over all the attitude is closer to that attributed to the revolutionary Saint-Just, "No liberty for the enemies of liberty." The slogan of the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism, one of the organizations most active in denouncing speech offenders, is "Racism is not an opinion but a criminal offense." Even a group such as Reporters Without Borders, which works to further the freedom of the press throughout the world, generally makes no objection to the laws discussed above, although it did oppose the one criminalizing the denial of legally recognized genocides. In an interview, Antoine Héry, in charge of the group's activities in the European Union and the Balkans, explained to me: "I think that the problem in France is that there really are racist statements -- many. This climate exists; it isn't a phantasm. There is, from this point of view, a necessity to regulate a little the domain of speech, because there are abuses. I don't think that in the United States one finds this sort of mass behavior -- because it is massive, it isn't just one guy in his corner doing his thing."

    There have been dissident voices on the subject of the criminalization of so-called negationism and other "memorial laws." One of the most prominent is a group called Liberté pour l'Histoire, which was formed in 2005 in response to what seemed about to become a wave of such laws. In a public appeal signed by nineteen historians in December of that year and later by hundreds more, it stated that "in a free state, it is not the business of the parliament nor of the judicial authority to define historical truth" and called for "the abrogation of these legislative measures unworthy of a democratic regime." But even this unambiguous stand is not so solid as it might appear. In 2010, at the International Congress of Historical Sciences in Amsterdam, the group's president, Pierre Nora, spoke of the Gayssot Law and stated: "It is now twenty years since the law was voted, and even if we continue to regret it intellectually speaking, the association Liberté pour l'Histoire does not campaign for its suppression and does not wish to challenge it for the simple reason that this legal and official challenge would only be seen in the public eye as authorizing and even encouraging the denial of the Jewish genocide." There could hardly be a better illustration of the French ambivalence on the matter than this.

    This ambivalence derives from an evident fact: the characteristics of the system that make it vicious from a free-speech perspective -- the vagueness and elasticity of the definitions of the crimes, the politically selective application of the laws, the tendency of the trials to become examinations of the defendants' thoughts and beliefs rather than merely of their public statements -- are virtues for a system of political repression, and in France there is a general consensus that the "extreme right" needs to be kept down and that expressions of "racism" and "antisemitism" deserve to be squelched. While there are pockets of dissidence -- such as the websites Polémia and Boulevard Voltaire, the independent rightist station Radio Courtoisie and the Internet television channel TV Libertés -- the assumption remains widespread that anyone arguing that freedom should extend to such speech must have evil motives.

    The legal procedures through which speech is restricted do sometimes come under criticism. For instance, the ban on Dieudonné's show "The Wall" was widely criticized because it imposed a prior restraint, seen as equivalent to censorship in a way that punishing the performer afterward would not be. Jack Lang, who was minister of culture in the Mitterrand administration, said that the Council of State had opened a Pandora's box of potential abuses; he objected as well to basing the decision on a vague principle of "human dignity" and pointed out that the risk to public order was not credible. Michel Tubiana, a former president of the Human Rights League, which also objected to the ban, told me in an interview that Dieudonné should have been allowed to do his show and then he could have been prosecuted in the normal way. On the league's website, one reads: "Clearly it is necessary to let nothing pass, to systematically bring prosecutions against the delinquent, to denounce systematically his crimes."

    For the future, there is pressure to increase the surveillance, particularly of the Internet. At its annual dinners, which are grand affairs similar to those of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in the United States, the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France presses the attending government officials hard for ever more stringent restrictions, especially on Internet communications. In March 2016, for example, its president, Roger Cukierman, urged that the state of emergency "should also apply to the Internet," and this year its new president, Francis Kalifat, called for "zero tolerance" for bloggers "of hateful content."

    In the meantime, France, like the other countries of the European Union, is a party to the Council Framework Decision "on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law," adopted unanimously by the ministers in the Council of the European Union in November 2008. In a report in January 2014 on the implementation of this decision, the European Commission stated: "Member States must ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable when directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin:

    publicly inciting to violence or hatred, including by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material; publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; or the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or one or more of its members."

    And France does its part, by continuing to reinforce its laws. On August 5 of this year it made illegal any "nonpublic" insult or defamation (as, for example, made during a meeting in a company's offices) "made toward a person or group of persons because of their origin or belonging or not belonging, real or supposed, to an ethnic group, a nation, a putative race or a particular religion; [or] because of their sex, their sexual orientation or gender identity, or their handicap."

    The law provides for fines of 1,500 euros initially and 3,000 euros for recidivists. It also gives a judge the option of augmenting the punishment with a compulsory course in citizenship.

    Lawrence G. Proulx is a retired copy editor who worked for more than 30 years at the Washington Times, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune and International New York Times.

    Diversity Heretic > , October 4, 2017 at 4:51 am GMT

    "[Neo]Liberalism" is a religion. It defines orthodoxy and heresy and punishes the latter. It asserts the right to punish those who traduce its icons and who violate its taboos.

    AKAHorace > , October 4, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT

    Would it solve or worsen problems if they reintroduced dueling ?

    Achmed E. Newman > , Website October 4, 2017 at 7:54 am GMT

    From all this long history of curtailment and punishment of free speech of various sorts, it seems like the French never really had their hearts in it, whether they had their constitution of the 5th Republic with its weasel-out words "but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." or even if they had had the same supposed "law of the land" as the US Constitution with its Amendment I.

    Our Constitution was upheld pretty well for about 3/4 of the total time since it was written, but it takes the kind of people who care about basic principles. That would pretty much mean mostly descendants of the Founders with only such influx of newcomers that could be assimilated into the culture that values basic principles over political expediency. It goes without saying that women shouldn't have been allowed to vote here, but I said it just in case. In France, I think there weren't so many people that ever got the real idea of free speech and the quote that Voltaire didn't say.

    Worse yet for France is the codifying of certain areas of knowledge, normally subject to debate, as "Government-Approved Non-arguable Truth" , which is what the legal maneuvers you write about amount to. Of course, the elites, along with the cucks of the land arrange these Truths to be based on any opposition to foreign immigrant invasion, defending of one's race, but opposition to the Government will always be number 1, as that locks it all in. It's a nice Catch-22 there – "YOUR government's speech policy clearly specifies what you can and can't talk about. The speech policy happens to be one of the things you can't talk about."

    The Ministry of Truth is probably not even necessary anymore, as it seems like the unprincipled French have let the bulk of it be put in place already – maybe the Ministry of Truth is all part of "The Cloud". Instead of the answer to, or way out of, this 1984 society lying "with the proles", I'd say it's more up to the hackers now.

    conatus > , October 4, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT

    Definitional hypertrophy
    "This ambivalence derives from an evident fact: the characteristics of the system that make it vicious from a free-speech perspective -- the vagueness and elasticity of the definitions of the crimes"
    In an earlier piece Mr. Proulx wrote about 'defintional hypertrophy' which seems to characterize our Zeitgeist. A great great phrase which sums up the elasticized properties of the big three sins of our times, racism, sexism and homophobia.
    Racism used to mean Birmingham Regulations regarding public facilities and separate but equal schools, now due to definitional hypertrophy it means 'noticing any racial characteristics' especially if you are white. Sexism used to mean, say banning women from non nurturing occupations and now it means saying "You look good!" to a woman in a absent minded fit of masculinity. Homophobia used to mean 'Hey keep it in the closet pal i don't want to think about what you do" and now homophobia means you must clap loudly and quickly at all homosexual activities or Homo Tinkerbell will die.
    Over time these definitions have expanded as the Majority's freedoms have contracted.

    Jason Liu > , October 4, 2017 at 10:37 am GMT

    Free speech is an illusion, it seems. Most people want to shut their enemies up, and often succeed in doing so. Some countries are just more upfront about it.

    Wizard of Oz > , October 4, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

    Is there not class distinction which helps fo understand what these laws are about. Any intelligènt edicated person ought to be verbally adroit enough to convey his meaning in an indirect way so as to avoid the thrust of the law. Thus, e.g.

    I think we should discuss how we can combat the very commonly stated view that X and the alarming number of people who can see nothing wrong with it. It is not a matter so much as truth or falsehood but we need to ensure that children are indoctrinated from an early age so they will never even ask the disturbing queston "is this true?". By the time they have grown up to participate in the political life of the nation the whole question will have been swallowed by a memory hole and become a non issue. Much safer for the tranquillity of society than continued cantankerous debates erupting over the truth or falsity of something permanently consigned to be false.

    IndieRafael > , October 4, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    Long but worth it. As author Proulx says, you can skip over sections in the middle and jump to his conclusion. This is one of the most thoroughly researched, best organized and most clearly written articles I've ever read on Unz.com. The internet needs more copy editors writing like this.

    The article is really helpful in understanding the current situation in France.

    The European context is mentioned at the end. It would be interesting to read a comparison of France and other European countries.

    anonymous > , Disclaimer October 4, 2017 at 5:47 pm GMT

    News censorship rises where news integrity falls. Eastern regimes know well harmful effects of censors and informants.

    Mulegino1 > , October 4, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

    In the land of "Liberte, Fraternite, et Egalite" there is from all appearances very little "liberte" and that little international clique of "freres" enjoys a lot more "egalite" than the rest.

    Europeancivilwar.com > , Website October 4, 2017 at 6:29 pm GMT

    I think the situation in Spain has shown just how little the EU pretenses of 'democracy' mean. Indeed, we all know the famous quote about what 'democracy' really means.

    Regrettably though I think things will need to get much worse before they get better. I think the 'normal' people will need Muslims to make up at least 50% of the overall population before they realize just what a horrific future they are heading to..

    [Oct 04, 2017] Islamic threat as substitute for the Soviet threat that disappeared

    Islamic terrorism is to a large extent reaction against Western Imperialism.
    The article actually also outline how new "Russia threat" is built.
    Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    renfro > , October 4, 2017 at 4:33 am GMT

    One of the first things I came across when trying to pinpoint when the Islamic threat was first being 'ginned up' in the US was this essay written in 1992. It is so accurate it could have been written yesterday. I think anyone could guess at which foreign country had the individuals and journalist and congressional clout in the US to create the idea of a 'Green Peril'.

    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/green-peril-creating-islamic-fundamentalist-threat

    The "Green Peril": Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
    By Leon T. Hadar
    August 27, 1992

    excerpts..

    The Making of a "Peril"

    The Islamic threat argument is becoming increasingly popular with some segments of the American foreign policy establishment. They are encouraged by foreign governments who, for reasons of self-interest, want to see Washington embroiled in the coming West vs. Islam confrontation. The result is the construction of the new peril, a process that does not reflect any grand conspiracy but that nevertheless has its own logic, rules and timetables.

    Indeed, like the Red Menace of the Cold War era, the Green Peril is perceived as a cancer spreading around the globe, undermining the legitimacy of Western values and political systems. The cosmic importance of the confrontation would make it necessary for Washington to adopt a long term diplomatic and military strategy; to forge new and solid alliances; to prepare the American people for a never ending struggle that will test their resolve; and to develop new containment policies, new doctrines, and a new foreign policy elite with its "wise men" and "experts."

    The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.

    In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.

    The Israeli government and its supporters in Washington are trying to play the Islamic card. The specter of Central Asian republics and Iran equipped with nuclear weapons helps Israel to reduce any potential international pressure on it to place its own nuclear capabilities and strategy on the negotiating table. More important, perhaps, the Green Peril could revive, in the long run, Israel's role as America's strategic asset, which was eroded as a result of the end of the Cold War
    The operational message is that the United States "must refocus its policy on the basic problems facing the Islamic world rather than only the Arab-Israeli conflict."[23] Jerusalem's attempts to turn that conflict into a Jewish-Moslem confrontation and to place America on its side to help contain radical Moslem forces in the region may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The result is likely to be strengthened anti-American feelings in the Middle East and anti-American terrorist acts, which, in turn, will invite a new round of American military intervention."

    [Oct 04, 2017] Creating taboos is the slicing salami tactic

    How marginalization of opposition works: Once the extreme positions on an issue (left of right) are rendered taboo and excluded, the next position in (which the lobbyists could not easily succeed in banning as "extreme" initially) becomes the new "extreme". As a bonus its advocates can be accused of being closet supporters of the banned position and as such ostracized.
    Oct 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Randal > ,

    October 4, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

    @Clay Bishop

    I've been banned from the Antiwar comment section more than once for explicitly mentioning Jewish influence on foreign policy without masking it with terms like "Zionists," "Neocons," "Likudniks," or the "War Party."

    As much as the older crowd on our political spectrum hate to admit it, Daily Stormer and Pol have actually opened up a space for a rational discussion of Jewish influence on politics. When you have anonymous accounts literally calling for all Jews to be gassed, a couple pundits talking soberly about Jewish influence seem fairly moderate by comparison.

    And the readers of DS and Pol are definitely the younger generation who will make up the majority of the Right in the future. I envision a day in the near future when the mention of Israel elicits boos at the Republican National Convention.

    As much as the older crowd on our political spectrum hate to admit it, Daily Stormer and Pol have actually opened up a space for a rational discussion of Jewish influence on politics. When you have anonymous accounts literally calling for all Jews to be gassed, a couple pundits talking soberly about Jewish influence seem fairly moderate by comparison.

    This is of course exactly how banning opinions distorts debate and why identity lobbyists love to impose such taboos on discourse.

    Once the extreme positions on an issue are rendered taboo and excluded, the next position in (which the lobbyists could not easily succeed in banning as "extreme" initially) becomes the apparent "extreme" and as a bonus its advocates can be accused of being closet supporters of the banned extreme. They then have to spend all their time and energy defending themselves against being harassed and trying to word their arguments carefully so they can't be accused of falling foul of the taboo (or as with some of the accusations against Giraldi's piece here – of not trying hard enough to avoid the supposed appearance of falling foul of it).

    That's how proposals to limit mass immigration are labelled "race hatred" and banned in many forums, and how reasonable raising of an important issue such as in Giraldi's piece gets one smeared as an "antisemite" (or potentially prosecuted in the UK) and excluded from mainstream publications.

    Rurik > , October 4, 2017 at 5:47 pm GMT

    @Randal


    As much as the older crowd on our political spectrum hate to admit it, Daily Stormer and Pol have actually opened up a space for a rational discussion of Jewish influence on politics. When you have anonymous accounts literally calling for all Jews to be gassed, a couple pundits talking soberly about Jewish influence seem fairly moderate by comparison.
    This is of course exactly how banning opinions distorts debate and why identity lobbyists love to impose such taboos on discourse.

    Once the extreme positions on an issue are rendered taboo and excluded, the next position in (which the lobbyists could not easily succeed in banning as "extreme" initially) becomes the apparent "extreme" and as a bonus its advocates can be accused of being closet supporters of the banned extreme. They then have to spend all their time and energy defending themselves against being harassed and trying to word their arguments carefully so they can't be accused of falling foul of the taboo (or as with some of the accusations against Giraldi's piece here - of not trying hard enough to avoid the supposed appearance of falling foul of it).

    That's how proposals to limit mass immigration are labelled "race hatred" and banned in many forums, and how reasonable raising of an important issue such as in Giraldi's piece gets one smeared as an "antisemite" (or potentially prosecuted in the UK) and excluded from mainstream publications.

    Once the extreme positions on an issue are rendered taboo and excluded, the next position in (which the lobbyists could not easily succeed in banning as "extreme" initially) becomes the apparent "extreme" and as a bonus its advocates can be accused of being closet supporters of the banned extreme.

    I'm glad your insightful comment was recognized as such

    Reminds me of how Marine Le Pen's father was marginalized as an 'anti-Semite' (for simply telling the obvious truth), and once he was effectively maligned, (they) set their sights on the moderate daughter, as being "far right", which simply means not as far left as (they) are.

    today they call the AfD "far right", in order to marginalize their extremely reasonable and moderate positions – as advocating an invasion of Poland

    and of course, were Mr. G to sob his contrition and re-write the article, (not likely ; ), they'd simply set their sights on the next target, having moved the goal posts and tilted the playing field always more and more in their favor.

    [Oct 01, 2017] Neoliberal economic policies in the United States The impact of globalisation on a `Northern country by Kim Scipes

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets" (Piven, 2007: 13). ..."
    "... The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies. ..."
    "... However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) -- of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged, however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and in the United States itself. ..."
    Oct 01, 2017 | links.org.au

    Most contemporary discussions of globalization, and especially of the impact of neoliberal economic policies, focus on the countries of the Global South (see, for example, Bond, 2005; Ellner and Hellinger, eds., 2003; a number of articles in Harris, ed., 2006; Klein, 2007; Monthly Review, 2007; and, among others, see Scipes, 1999, 2006b). Recent articles arguing that the globalization project has receded and might be taking different approaches (Bello, 2006; Thornton, 2007) have also focused on the Global South. What has been somewhat discussed (see Giroux, 2004; Piven, 2004; Aronowitz, 2005) but not systematically addressed, however, is what has been the impact of globalization and especially related neoliberal economic policies on working people in a northern country? [i]

    This paper specifically addresses this question by looking at the impact of neoliberal economic policies on working people in the United States . Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets" (Piven, 2007: 13).

    The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies.

    However, care must be taken as to how this is understood. While sociologically-focused textbooks (e.g., Aguirre and Baker, eds., 2008; Hurst, 2007) have joined together some of the most recent thinking on social inequality -- and have demonstrated that inequality not only exists but is increasing -- this has been generally presented in a national context; in this case, within the United States. And if they recognize that globalization is part of the reason for increasing inequality, it is generally included as one of a set of reasons.

    This paper argues that we simply cannot understand what is happening unless we put developments within a global context: the United States effects, and is affected by, global processes. Thus, while some of the impacts can be understood on a national level, we cannot ask related questions as to causes -- or future consequences -- by confining our examination to a national level: we absolutely must approach this from a global perspective (see Nederveen Pieterse, 2004, 2008).

    This also must be put in historical perspective as well, although the focus in this piece will be limited to the post-World War II world. Inequality within what is now the United States today did not -- obviously -- arise overnight. Unquestionably, it began at least 400 years ago in Jamestown -- with the terribly unequal and socially stratified society of England's colonial Virginia before Africans were brought to North America (see Fischer, 1989), much less after their arrival in 1619, before the Pilgrims. Yet, to understand the roots of development of contemporary social inequality in the US , we must understand the rise of " Europe " in relation to the rest of the world (see, among others, Rodney, 1972; Nederveen Pieterse, 1989). In short, again, we have to understand that the development of the United States has been and will always be a global project and, without recognizing that, we simply cannot begin to understand developments within the United States .

    We also have to understand the multiple and changing forms of social stratification and resulting inequalities in this country. This paper prioritizes economic stratification, although is not limited to just the resulting inequalities. Nonetheless, it does not focus on racial, gender or any other type of social stratification. However, this paper is not written from the perspective that economic stratification is always the most important form of stratification, nor from the perspective that we can only understand other forms of stratification by understanding economic stratification: all that is being claimed herein is that economic stratification is one type of social stratification, arguably one of the most important types yet only one of several, and investigates the issue of economic stratification in the context of contemporary globalization and the neoliberal economic policies that have developed to address this phenomenon as it affects the United States.

    Once this global-historical perspective is understood and after quickly suggesting in the "prologue" why the connection between neoliberal economic policies and the affects on working people in the United States has not been made usually, this paper focuses on several interrelated issues: (1) it reports the current economic situation for workers in the United States; (2) it provides a historical overview of US society since World War II; (3) it analyzes the results of US Government economic policies; and (4) it ties these issues together. From that, it comes to a conclusion about the affects of neoliberal economic policies on working people in the United States .

    Prologue: Origins of neoliberal economic policies in the United States

    As stated above, most of the attention directed toward understanding the impact of neoliberal economic policies on various countries has been confined to the countries of the Global South. However, these policies have been implemented in the United States as well. This arguably began in 1982, when the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, launched a vicious attack on inflation -- and caused the deepest US recession since the Great Depression of the late 1920s-1930s.

    However, these neoliberal policies have been implemented in the US perhaps more subtly than in the Global South. This is said because, when trying to understand changes that continue to take place in the United States, these economic policies are hidden "under" the various and sundry "cultural wars" (around issues such as drugs, premarital sex, gun control, abortion, marriages for gays and lesbians) that have been taking place in this country and, thus, not made obvious: most Americans, and especially working people, are not aware of the changes detailed below. [ii]

    However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) -- of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged, however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and in the United States itself. Thus, we see both Democratic and Republican Parties in agreement to maintain and expand the US Empire (in more neutral political science-ese, a "uni-polar world"), but the differences that emerge within each party and between each party are generally confined to how this can best be accomplished. While this paper focuses on the economic and social changes going on, it should be kept in mind that these changes did not "just happen": conscious political decisions have been made that produced social results (see Piven, 2004) that make the US experience -- at the center of a global social order based on an "advanced" capitalist economy -- qualitatively different from experiences in other more economically-developed countries.

    So, what has been the impact of these policies on workers in the US?

    1) The current situation for workers and growing economic inequality

    Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times published a piece on September 4, 2006, writing about entry-level workers, young people who were just entering the job market. Mr. Greenhouse noted changes in the US economy; in fact, there have been substantial changes since early 2000, when the economy last created many jobs.

    Yet, the percentage drop in wages hides the growing gap between college and high school graduates. Today, on average, college grads earn 45 per cent more than high school graduates, where the gap had "only" been 23 per cent in 1979: the gap has doubled in 26 years (Greenhouse, 2006b).

    A 2004 story in Business Week found that 24 per cent of all working Americans received wages below the poverty line ( Business Week , 2004). [iii] In January 2004, 23.5 million Americans received free food from food pantries. "The surge for food demand is fueled by several forces -- job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they had." And 43 million people were living in low-income families with children (Jones, 2004).

    A 2006 story in Business Week found that US job growth between 2001-2006 was really based on one industry: health care. Over this five-year period, the health-care sector has added 1.7 million jobs, while the rest of the private sector has been stagnant. Michael Mandel, the economics editor of the magazine, writes:

    information technology, the great electronic promise of the 1990s, has turned into one of the greatest job-growth disappointments of all time. Despite the splashy success of companies such as Google and Yahoo!, businesses at the core of the information economy -- software, semi-conductors, telecom, and the whole range of Web companies -- have lost more than 1.1 million jobs in the past five years. These businesses employ fewer Americans today than they did in 1998, when the Internet frenzy kicked into high gear (Mandel, 2006: 56) .

    In fact, "take away health-care hiring in the US, and quicker than you can say cardiac bypass, the US unemployment rate would be 1 to 2 percentage points higher" (Mandel, 2006: 57).

    There has been extensive job loss in manufacturing. Over 3.4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1998, and 2.9 million of them have been lost since 2001. Additionally, over 40,000 manufacturing firms have closed since 1999, and 90 per cent have been medium and large shops. In labor-import intensive industries, 25 per cent of laid-off workers remain unemployed after six months, two-thirds of them who do find new jobs earn less than on their old job, and one-quarter of those who find new jobs "suffer wage losses of more than 30 percent" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).

    The AFL-CIO details the US job loss by manufacturing sector in the 2001-05 period:

    As of the end of 2005, only 10.7 per cent of all US employment was in manufacturing -- down from 21.6 per cent at its height in 1979 -- in raw numbers, manufacturing employment totaled 19.426 million in 1979, 17.263 million in 2000, and 14.232 million in 2005. [iv] The number of production workers in this country at the end of 2005 was 9.378 million. [v] This was only slightly above the 9.306 million production workers in 1983, and was considerably below the 11.463 million as recently as 2000 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006b). As one writer puts it, this is "the biggest long-term trend in the economy: the decline of manufacturing." He notes that employment in the durable goods (e.g., cars and cable TV boxes) category of manufacturing has declined from 19 per cent of all employment in 1965 to 8 per cent in 2005 (Altman, 2006). And at the end of 2006, only 11.7 per cent of all manufacturing workers were in unions (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).

    In addition, in 2004 and 2005, "the real hourly and weekly wages of US manufacturing workers have fallen 3 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).

    The minimum wage level went unchanged for nine years: until recently when there was a small increase -- to $5.85 an hour on July 24, 2007 -- US minimum wage had remained at $5.15 an hour since September 1, 1997 . During that time, the cost of living rose 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, this was the lowest level of the minimum wage since 1955. At the same time, the minimum wage was only 31 per cent of the average pay of non-supervisory workers in the private sector, which is the lowest share since World War II (Bernstein and Shapiro, 2006).

    In addition to the drop in wages at all levels, fewer new workers get health care benefits with their jobs: [vi] in 2005, 64 per cent of all college grads got health coverage in entry-level jobs, where 71 per cent had gotten it in 2000 -- a 7 per cent drop in just five years. Over a longer term, we can see what has happened to high school grads: in 1979, two-thirds of all high school graduates got health care coverage in entry-level jobs, while only one-third do today (Greenhouse, 2006b). It must be kept in mind that only about 28 per cent of the US workforce are college graduates -- most of the work force only has a high school degree, although a growing percentage of them have some college, but not college degrees.

    Because things have gotten so bad, many young adults have gotten discouraged and given up. The unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent for ages 25-34, but 8.2 per cent for workers 20-24. (Greenhouse, 2006b).

    Yet things are actually worse than that. In the US , unemployment rates are artificially low. If a person gets laid off and gets unemployment benefits -- which fewer and fewer workers even get -- they get a check for six months. If they have not gotten a job by the end of six months -- and it is taking longer and longer to get a job -- and they have given up searching for work, then not only do they loose their unemployment benefits, but they are no longer counted as unemployed: one doesn't even count in the statistics!

    A report from April 2004 provides details. According to the then-head of the US Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, "the average duration of unemployment increased from twelve weeks in September 2000 to twenty weeks in March [2004]" (quoted in Shapiro, 2004: 4). In March 2004, 354,000 jobs workers had exhausted their unemployment benefits, and were unable to get any additional federal unemployment assistance: Shapiro (2004: 1) notes, "In no other month on record, with data available back to 1971, have there been so many 'exhaustees'."

    Additionally, although it's rarely reported, unemployment rates vary by racial grouping. No matter what the unemployment rate is, it really only reflects the rate of whites who are unemployed because about 78 per cent of the workforce is white. However, since 1954, the unemployment rate of African-Americans has always been more than twice that of whites, and Latinos are about 1 1/2 times that of whites. So, for example, if the overall rate is five percent, then it's at least ten per cent for African-Americans and 7.5 per cent for Latinos.

    However, most of the developments presented above -- other than the racial affects of unemployment -- have been relatively recent. What about longer term? Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning Princeton University economist who writes for The New York Times, pointed out these longer term affects: non-supervisory workers make less in real wages today (2006) than they made in 1973! So, after inflation is taken out, non-supervisory workers are making less today in real terms that their contemporaries made 33 years ago (Krugman, 2006b). Figures provided by Stephen Franklin -- obtained from the US Bureau of Statistics, and presented in 1982 dollars -- show that a production worker in January 1973 earned $9.08 an hour -- and $8.19 an hour in December 2005 (Franklin, 2006). Workers in 2005 also had less long-term job security, fewer benefits, less stable pensions (when they have them), and rising health care costs. [vii]

    In short, the economic situation for "average Americans" is getting worse. A front-page story in the Chicago Tribune tells about a worker who six years ago was making $29 an hour, working at a nuclear power plant. He got laid off, and now makes $12.24 an hour, working on the bottom tier of a two-tiered unionized factory owned by Caterpillar, the multinational earth moving equipment producer, which is less than half of his old wages. The article pointed out, "Glued to a bare bones budget, he saved for weeks to buy a five-pack of $7 T-shirts" ( Franklin , 2006).

    As Foster and Magdoff point out:

    Except for a small rise in the late 1990s, real wages have been sluggish for decades. The typical (median-income) family has sought to compensate for this by increasing the number of jobs and working hours per household. Nevertheless, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the typical household fell for five years in a row through 2004 (Foster and Magdoff, 2009: 28).

    A report by Workers Independent News (WIN) stated that while a majority of metropolitan areas have regained the 2.6 million jobs lost during the first two years of the Bush Administration, "the new jobs on average pay $9,000 less than the jobs replaced," a 21 per cent decline from $43,629 to $34,378. However, WIN says that "99 out of the 361 metro areas will not recover jobs before 2007 and could be waiting until 2015 before they reach full recovery" (Russell, 2006).

    At the same time, Americans are going deeper and deeper into debt. At the end of 2000, total US household debt was $7.008 trillion, with home mortgage debt being $4.811 trillion and non-mortgage debt $1.749 trillion; at the end of 2006, comparable numbers were a total of $12.817 trillion; $9.705 trillion (doubling since 2000); and $2.431 trillion (US Federal Reserve, 2007-rounding by author). Foster and Magdoff (2009: 29) show that this debt is not only increasing, but based on figures from the Federal Reserve, that debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased overall from 62% in 1975 to 96.8% in 2000, and to 127.2% in 2005.

    Three polls from mid-2006 found "deep pessimism among American workers, with most saying that wages were not keeping pace with inflation, and that workers were worse off in many ways than a generation ago" (Greenhouse, 2006a). And, one might notice, nothing has been said about increasing gas prices, lower home values, etc. The economic situation for most working people is not looking pretty.

    In fact, bankruptcy filings totaled 2.043 million in 2005, up 31.6 per cent from 2004 (Associated Press, 2006), before gas prices went through the ceiling and housing prices began falling in mid-2006. Yet in 1998, writers for the Chicago Tribune had written, " the number of personal bankruptcy filings skyrocketed 19.5 per cent last year, to an all-time high of 1,335,053, compared with 1,117,470 in 1996" (Schmeltzer and Gruber, 1998).

    And at the same time, there were 37 million Americans in poverty in 2005, one of out every eight. Again, the rates vary by racial grouping: while 12.6 per cent of all Americans were in poverty, the poverty rate for whites was 8.3 percent; for African Americans, 24.9 per cent were in poverty, as were 21.8 per cent of all Latinos. (What is rarely acknowledged, however, is that 65 per cent of all people in poverty in the US are white.) And 17.6 per cent of all children were in poverty (US Census Bureau, 2005).

    What about the "other half"? This time, Paul Krugman gives details from a report by two Northwestern University professors, Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon, titled "Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?" Krugman writes:

    Between 1973 and 2001, the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 per cent per year. But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint. Just to give you a sense of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year, the 99th percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of $1,672,726. The Center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well over $6 million a year (Krugman, 2006a) .

    But how can we understand what is going on? We need to put take a historical approach to understand the significance of the changes reported above.

    (2) A historical look at the US social order since World War II

    When considering the US situation, it makes most sense to look at "recent" US developments, those since World War II. Just after the War, in 1947, the US population was about six per cent of the world's total. Nonetheless, this six per cent produced about 48 per cent of all goods and services in the world! [viii] With Europe and Japan devastated, the US was the only industrialized economy that had not been laid waste. Everybody needed what the US produced -- and this country produced the goods, and sent them around the world.

    At the same time, the US economy was not only the most productive, but the rise of the industrial union movement in the 1930s and '40s -- the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) -- meant that workers had some power to demand a share of the wealth produced. In 1946, just after the war, the US had the largest strike wave in its history: 116,000,000 production days were lost in early 1946, as industry-wide strikes in auto, steel, meat packing, and the electrical industry took place across the United States and Canada , along with smaller strikes in individual firms. Not only that, but there were general strikes that year in Oakland , California and Stamford , Connecticut . Workers had been held back during the war, but they demonstrated their power immediately thereafter (Lipsitz, 1994; Murolo and Chitty, 2001). Industry knew that if it wanted the production it could sell, it had to include unionized workers in on the deal.

    It was this combination -- devastated economic markets around the world and great demand for goods and services, the world's most developed industrial economy, and a militant union movement -- that combined to create what is now known as the "great American middle class." [ix]

    To understand the economic impact of these factors, changes in income distribution in US society must be examined. The best way to illuminate this is to assemble family data on income or wealth [x] -- income data is more available, so that will be used; arrange it from the smallest amount to the largest; and then to divide the population into fifths, or quintiles. In other words, arrange every family's annual income from the lowest to the highest, and divide the total number of family incomes into quintiles or by 20 percents (i.e., fifths). Then compare changes in the top incomes for each quintile. By doing so, one can then observe changes in income distribution over specified time periods.

    The years between 1947 and 1973 are considered the "golden years" of the US society. [xi] The values are presented in 2005 dollars, so that means that inflation has been taken out: these are real dollar values, and that means these are valid comparisons.

    Figure 1: US family income, in US dollars, growth and istribution, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared to 1973-2001, in 2005 dollars

    Lowest 20%

    Second 20 %

    Third 20%

    Fourth 20%

    95 th Percentile [xii]

    1947

    $11,758

    $18,973

    $25,728

    $36,506

    $59,916

    1973

    $23,144

    $38,188

    $53,282

    $73,275

    $114,234

    Difference (26 years) $11,386

    (97%)

    $19,145

    (100%)

    $27,554

    (107%)

    $36,769

    (101%)

    $54,318

    (91%)

    1973

    $23,144

    $38,188

    $53,282

    $73,275

    $114,234

    2001

    $26,467

    $45,355

    $68,925

    $103,828

    $180,973

    Difference (28 years) $3,323

    (14%)

    $7,167

    (19%)

    $15,643

    (29%)

    $30,553

    (42%)

    $66,739

    (58%)

    Source: US Commerce Department, Bureau of the Census (hereafter, US Census Bureau) at www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html . All dollar values converted to 2005 dollars by US Census Bureau, removing inflation and comparing real values. Differences and percentages calculated by author. Percentages shown in both rows labeled "Difference" show the dollar difference as a percentage of the first year of the comparison.

    Data for the first period, 1947-1973 -- the data above the grey line -- shows there was considerable real economic growth for each quintile . Over the 26-year period, there was approximately 100 per cent real economic growth for the incomes at the top of each quintile, which meant incomes doubled after inflation was removed; thus, there was significant economic growth in the society.

    And importantly, this real economic growth was distributed fairly evenly . The data in the fourth line (in parentheses) is the percentage relationship between the difference between 1947-1973 real income when compared to the 1947 real income, with 100 per cent representing a doubling of real income: i.e., the difference for the bottom quintile between 1947 and 1973 was an increase of $11,386, which is 97 per cent more than $11,758 that the top of the quintile had in 1947. As can be seen, other quintiles also saw increases of roughly comparable amounts: in ascending order, 100 percent, 107 percent, 101 percent, and 91 percent. In other words, the rate of growth by quintile was very similar across all five quintiles of the population.

    When looking at the figures for 1973-2001, something vastly different can be observed. This is the section below the grey line. What can be seen? First, economic growth has slowed considerably: the highest rate of growth for any quintile was that of 58 per cent for those who topped the fifth quintile, and this was far below the "lagger" of 91 per cent of the earlier period.

    Second, of what growth there was, it was distributed extremely unequally . And the growth rates for those in lower quintiles were generally lower than for those above them: for the bottom quintile, their real income grew only 14 per cent over the 1973-2001 period; for the second quintile, 19 percent; for the third, 29 percent; for the fourth, 42 percent; and for the 80-95 percent, 58 percent: loosely speaking, the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.

    Why the change? I think two things in particular. First, as industrialized countries recovered from World War II, corporations based in these countries could again compete with those from the US -- first in their own home countries, and then through importing into the US , and then ultimately when they invested in the United States . Think of Toyota : they began importing into the US in the early 1970s, and with their investments here in the early '80s and forward, they now are the largest domestic US auto producer.

    Second cause for the change has been the deterioration of the American labor movement: from 35.3 per cent of the non-agricultural workforce in unions in 1954, to only 12.0 per cent of all American workers in unions in 2006 -- and only 7.4 per cent of all private industry workers are unionized, which is less than in 1930!

    This decline in unionization has a number of reasons. Part of this deterioration has been the result of government policies -- everything from the crushing of the air traffic controllers when they went on strike by the Reagan Administration in 1981, to reform of labor law, to reactionary appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees administration of labor law. Certainly a key government policy, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, has been the North American Free Trade Act or NAFTA. One analyst came straight to the point:

    Since [NAFTA] was signed in 1993, the rise in the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 US jobs. Most of these lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the US economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits (Scott, 2003: 1).

    These attacks by elected officials have been joined by the affects due to the restructuring of the economy. There has been a shift from manufacturing to services. However, within manufacturing, which has long been a union stronghold, there has been significant job loss: between July 2000 and January 2004, the US lost three million manufacturing jobs, or 17.5 percent, and 5.2 million since the historical peak in 1979, so that "Employment in manufacturing [in January 2004] was its lowest since July 1950" (CBO, 2004). This is due to both outsourcing labor-intensive production overseas and, more importantly, technological displacement as new technology has enabled greater production at higher quality with fewer workers in capital-intensive production (see Fisher, 2004). Others have blamed burgeoning trade deficits for the rise: " an increasing share of domestic demand for manufacturing output is satisfied by foreign rather than domestic producers" (Bivens, 2005). [xiii] Others have even attributed it to changes in consumer preferences (Schweitzer and Zaman, 2006). Whatever the reason, of the 50 states, only five (Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) did not see any job loss in manufacturing between 1993-2003, yet 37 lost between 5.6 and 35.9 per cent of their manufacturing jobs during this period (Public Policy Institute, 2004).

    However, part of the credit for deterioration of the labor movement must be given to the labor movement itself: the leadership has been simply unable to confront these changes and, at the same time, they have consistently worked against any independent action by rank-and-file members. [xiv]

    However, it must be asked: are the changes in the economy presented herein merely statistical manipulations, or is this indicating something real?

    This point can be illustrated another way: by using CAGR, the Compound Annual Growth Rate. This is a single number that is computed, based on compounded amounts, across a range of years, to come up with an average number to represent the rate of increase or decrease each year across the entire period. This looks pretty complex, but it is based on the same idea as compound interest used in our savings accounts: you put in $10 today and (this is obviously not a real example) because you get ten per cent interest, so you have $11 the next year. Well, the following year, interest is not computed off the original $10, but is computed on the $11. So, by the third year, from your $10, you now have $12.10. Etc. And this is what is meant by the Compound Annual Growth Rate: this is average compound growth by year across a designated period.

    Based on the numbers presented above in Figure 1, the author calculated the Compound Annual Growth Rate by quintiles (Figure 2). The annual growth rate has been calculated for the first period, 1947-1973, the years known as the "golden years" of US society. What has happened since then? Compare results from the 1947-73 period to the annual growth rate across the second period, 1973-2001, again calculated by the author.

    Figure 2: Annual percentage of family income growth, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared to 1973-2001

    Population by quintiles

    1947-1973

    1973-2001
    95th Percentile

    2.51%

    1.66%

    Fourth quintile

    2.72%

    1.25%

    Third quintile

    2.84%

    .92%

    Second quintile

    2.73%

    .62%

    Lowest quintile

    2.64%

    .48%

    Source: Calculated by author from gather provided by the US Census Bureau at www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html .

    What we can see here is that while everyone's income was growing at about the same rate in the first period -- between 2.51 and 2.84 per cent annually -- by the second period, not only had growth slowed down across the board, but it grew by very different rates: what we see here, again, is that the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.

    If these figures are correct, a change over time in the percentage of income received by each quintile should be observable. Ideally, if the society were egalitarian, each 20 per cent of the population would get 20 per cent of the income in any one year. In reality, it differs. To understand Figure 3, below, one must not only look at the percentage of income held by a quintile across the chart, comparing selected year by selected year, but one needs to look to see whether a quintile's share of income is moving toward or away from the ideal 20 percent.

    Figure 3: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001.

    Population by quintiles 1947 1973 2001

    Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500 [xv]

    43.0% 41.1% 47.7%
    Second fifth--$103,100 23.1% 24.0% 22.9%
    Third fifth--$68,304 17.0% 17.5% 15.4%
    Fourth fifth--$45,021 11.9% 11.9% 9.7%
    Bottom fifth--$25,616 5.0% 5.5% 4.2%

    Source: US Census Bureau at www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f02ar.html .

    Unfortunately, much of the data available publicly ended in 2001. However, in the summer of 2007, after years of not releasing data any later than 2001, the Census Bureau released income data up to 2005. It allows us to examine what has taken place regarding family income inequality during the first four years of the Bush Administration.

    Figure 4: US family income, in US dollars, growth and distribution, by quintile, 2001-2005, 2005 US dollars

    Lowest 20%

    Second 20%

    Middle 20%

    Fourth 20%

    Lowest level of top 5%

    2001

    $26,467

    $45,855

    $68,925

    $103,828

    $180,973

    2005

    $25,616

    $45,021

    $68,304

    $103,100

    $184,500

    Difference

    (4 years)

    -$851

    (-3.2%)

    -$834

    (-1.8%)

    -$621

    (-.01%)

    -$728

    (-.007%)

    $3,527

    (1.94%)

    Source: US Census Bureau at www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html . (Over time, the Census Bureau refigures these amounts, so they have subsequently converted amounts to 2006 dollar values. These values are from their 2005 dollar values, and were calculated by the Census Bureau.) Differences and percentages calculated by author.

    Thus, what we've seen under the first four years of the Bush Administration is that for at most Americans, their economic situation has worsened: not only has over all economic growth for any quintile slowed to a minuscule 1.94 per cent at the most, but that the bottom 80 per cent actually lost income; losing money (an absolute loss), rather than growing a little but falling further behind the top quintile (a relative loss). Further, the decrease across the bottom four quintiles has been suffered disproportionately by those in the lowest 40 per cent of the society.

    This can perhaps be seen more clearly by examining CAGR rates by period.

    We can now add the results of the 2001-2005 period share of income by quintile to our earlier chart:

    Figure 5: Percentage of income growth per year by percentile, 1947-2005

    Population by quintiles

    1947-1973

    1973-2001

    2001-2005

    Top 95 percentile

    2.51%

    1.66%

    .48%

    Fourth fifth

    2.72%

    1.25%

    -.18%

    Third fifth

    2.84%

    .92%

    -.23%

    Second fifth

    2.73%

    .62%

    -.46%

    Bottom fifth

    2.64%

    .48%

    -.81%

    Source: Calculated by author from data gathered from the US Department of the Census www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html .

    As can be seen, the percentage of family income at each of the four bottom quintiles is less in 2005 than in 1947; the only place there has been improvement over this 58-year period is at the 95th percentile (and above).

    Figure 6: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001, 2005.

    Population by quintiles 1947 1973 2001 2005

    Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500

    43.0% 41.1% 47.7% 48.1%
    Second fifth--$103,100 23.1% 24.0% 22.9% 22.9%
    Third fifth--$68,304 17.0% 17.5% 15.4% 15.3%
    Fourth fifth--$45,021 11.9% 11.9% 9.7% 9.6%
    Bottom fifth--$25,616 5.0% 5.5% 4.2% 4.0%

    Source: U.S. Census Bureau at www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f02ar.html .

    What has been presented so far, regarding changes in income distribution, has been at the group level; in this case, quintile by quintile. It is time now to see how this has affected the society overall.

    Sociologists and economists use a number called the Gini index to measure inequality. Family income data has been used so far, and we will continue using it. A Gini index is fairly simple to use. It measures inequality in a society. A Gini index is generally reported in a range between 0.000 and 1.000, and is written in thousandths, just like a winning percentage mark: three digits after the decimal. And the higher the Gini score, the greater the inequality.

    Looking at the Gini index, we can see two periods since 1947, when the US Government began computing the Gini index for the country. From 1947-1968, with yearly change greater or smaller, the trend is downward, indicating reduced inequality: from .376 in 1947 to .378 in 1950, but then downward to .348 in 1968. So, again, over the first period, the trend is downward.

    What has happened since then? From the low point in 1968 of .348, the trend has been upward. In 1982, the Gini index hit .380, which was higher than any single year between 1947-1968, and the US has never gone below .380 since then. By 1992, it hit .403, and we've never gone back below .400. In 2001, the US hit .435. But the score for 2005 has only recently been published: .440 (source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html ). So, the trend is getting worse, and with the policies established under George W. Bush, I see them only continuing to increase in the forthcoming period. [And by the way, this increasing trend has continued under both the Republicans and the Democrats, but since the Republicans have controlled the presidency for 18 of the last 26 years (since 1981), they get most of the credit -- but let's not forget that the Democrats have controlled Congress across many of those years, so they, too, have been an equal opportunity destroyer!]

    However, one more question must be asked: how does this income inequality in the US, compare to other countries around the world? Is the level of income inequality comparable to other "developed" societies, or is it comparable to "developing" countries?

    We must turn to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for our data. The CIA computes Gini scores for family income on most of the countries around the world, and the last time checked in 2007 (August 1), they had data on 122 countries on their web page and these numbers had last been updated on July 19, 2007 (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007). With each country listed, there is a Gini score provided. Now, the CIA doesn't compute Gini scores yearly, but they give the last year it was computed, so these are not exactly equivalent but they are suggestive enough to use. However, when they do assemble these Gini scores in one place, they list them alphabetically, which is not of much comparative use (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007).

    However, the World Bank categorizes countries, which means they can be compared within category and across categories. The World Bank, which does not provide Gini scores, puts 208 countries into one of four categories based on Gross National Income per capita -- that's total value of goods and services sold in the market in a year, divided by population size. This is a useful statistic, because it allows us to compare societies with economies of vastly different size: per capita income removes the size differences between countries.

    The World Bank locates each country into one of four categories: lower income, lower middle income, upper middle income, and high income (World Bank, 2007a). Basically, those in the lower three categories are "developing" or what we used to call "third world" countries, while the high income countries are all of the so-called developed countries.

    The countries listed by the CIA with their respective Gini scores were placed into the specific World Bank categories in which the World Bank had previously located them (World Bank, 2007b). Once grouped in their categories, median Gini scores were computed for each group. When trying to get one number to represent a group of numbers, median is considered more accurate than an average, so the median was used, which means half of the scores are higher, half are lower -- in other words, the data is at the 50th percentile for each category.

    The Gini score for countries, by Gross National Income per capita, categorized by the World Bank:

    Figure 7: Median Gini Scores by World Bank income categories (countries selected by US Central Intelligence Agency were placed in categories developed by the World Bank) and compared to 2004 US Gini score as calculated by US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

    Income category

    Median Gini score

    Gini score, US (2004)

    Low income countries (less than $875/person/year)

    .406

    .450

    Lower-middle income countries (between $876-3,465/person/year)

    .414

    .450

    Upper-middle income countries (between $3,466-10,725/person/year

    .370

    .450

    Upper-income countries (over $10,726/person/year

    .316

    .450

    As can be seen, with the (CIA-calculated) Gini score of .450, the US family income is more unequal than the medians for each category, and is more unequal than some of the poorest countries on earth, such as Bangladesh (.318 -- calculated in 2000), Cambodia (.400, 2004 est.), Laos (.370-1997), Mozambique (.396, 1996-97), Uganda (.430-1999) and Vietnam (.361, 1998). This same finding also holds true using the more conservative Census Bureau-calculated Gini score of .440.

    Thus, the US has not only become more unequal over the 35 years, as has been demonstrated above, but has attained a level of inequality that is much more comparable to those of developing countries in general and, in fact, is more unequal today than some of the poorest countries on Earth. There is nothing suggesting that this increasing inequality will lessen anytime soon. And since this increasing income inequality has taken place under the leadership of both major political parties, there is nothing on the horizon that suggests either will resolutely address this issue in the foreseeable future regardless of campaign promises made.

    However, to move beyond discussion of whether President Obama is likely to address these and related issues, some consideration of governmental economic policies is required. Thus, he will be constrained by decisions made by previous administrations, as well as by the ideological blinders worn by those he has chosen to serve at the top levels of his administration.

    3) Governmental economic policies

    There are two key points that are especially important for our consideration: the US Budget and the US National Debt. They are similar, but different -- and consideration of each of them enhances understanding.

    A) US budget. Every year, the US Government passes a budget, whereby governmental officials estimate beforehand how much money needs to be taken in to cover all expenses. If the government actually takes in more money than it spends, the budget is said to have a surplus; if it takes in less than it spends, the budget is said to be in deficit.

    Since 1970, when Richard Nixon was President, the US budget has been in deficit every year except for the last four years under Clinton (1998-2001), where there was a surplus. But this surplus began declining under Clinton -- it was $236.2 billion in 2000, and only $128.2 billion in 2001, Clinton 's last budget. Under Bush, the US has gone drastically into deficit: -$157.8 billion in 2002; -$377.6 billion in 2003; -$412.7 billion in 2004; -$318.3 billion in 2005; and "only"-$248.2 billion in 2006 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).

    Now, that is just yearly surpluses and deficits. They get combined with all the other surpluses and deficits since the US became a country in 1789 to create to create a cumulative amount, what is called the National Debt.

    B) US national debt. Between 1789 and1980 -- from Presidents Washington through Carter -- the accumulated US National Debt was $909 billion or, to put it another way, $.909 trillion. During Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981-89), the National Debt tripled, from $.9 trillion to $2.868 trillion. It has continued to rise. As of the end of 2006, 17 years later and after a four-year period of surpluses where the debt was somewhat reduced, National Debt (or Gross Federal Debt) was $8.451 trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).

    To put it into context: the US economy, the most productive in the world, had a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $13.061 trillion in 2006, but the National Debt was $8.451 trillion -- 64.7 per cent of GDP -- and growing (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-1).

    In April 2006, one investor reported that "the US Treasury has a hair under $8.4 trillion in outstanding debt. How much is that? He put it into this context: " if you deposited one million dollars into a bank account every day, starting 2006 years ago, that you would not even have ONE trillion dollars in that account" (Van Eeden, 2006).

    Let's return to the budget deficit: like a family budget, when one spends more than one brings in, they can do basically one of three things: (a) they can cut spending; (b) they can increase taxes (or obviously a combination of the two); or (c) they can take what I call the "Wimpy" approach.

    For those who might not know this, Wimpy was a cartoon character, a partner of "Popeye the Sailor," a Saturday morning cartoon that was played for over 30 years in the United States . Wimpy had a great love for hamburgers. And his approach to life was summed up in his rap: "I'll gladly give you two hamburgers on Tuesday, for a hamburger today."

    What is argued is that the US Government has been taking what I call the Wimpy approach to its budgetary problems: it does not reduce spending, it does not raise taxes to pay for the increased expenditures -- in fact, President Bush has cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans [xvi] -- but instead it sells US Government securities, often known as Treasuries, to rich investors, private corporations or, increasingly, to other countries to cover the budget deficit. In a set number of years, the US Government agrees to pay off each bond -- and the difference between what the purchaser bought them for and the increased amount the US Government pays to redeem them is the cost of financing the Treasuries, a certain percentage of the total value. By buying US Treasuries, other countries have helped keep US interest rates low, helping to keep the US economy in as good of shape as it has been (thus, keeping the US market flourishing for them), while allowing the US Government not to have to confront its annual deficits. At the end of 2006, the total value of outstanding Treasuries -- to all investors, not just other countries -- was $8.507 trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-87).

    It turns out that at in December 2004, foreigners owned approximately 61 per cent of all outstanding US Treasuries. Of that, seven per cent was held by China ; these were valued at $223 billion (Gundzik, 2005).

    The percentage of foreign and international investors' purchases of the total US public debt since 1996 has never been less than 17.7 percent, and it has reached a high of 25.08 per cent in September 2006. In September 2006, foreigners purchased $2.134 trillion of Treasuries; these were 25.08 per cent of all purchases, and 52.4 per cent of all privately-owned purchases (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-89). [xvii] Altogether, "the world now holds financial claims amounting to $3.5 trillion against the United States , or 26 per cent of our GDP" (Humpage and Shenk, 2007: 4).

    Since the US Government continues to run deficits, because the Bush Administration has refused to address this problem, the United States has become dependent on other countries buying Treasuries. Like a junky on heroin, the US must get other investors (increasingly countries) to finance its budgetary deficits.

    To keep the money flowing in, the US must keep interest rates high -- basically, interest rates are the price that must be paid to borrow money. Over the past year or so, the Federal Reserve has not raised interest rates, but prior to that, for 15 straight quarterly meetings, they did. And, as known, the higher the interest rate, the mostly costly it is to borrow money domestically, which means increasingly likelihood of recession -- if not worse. In other words, dependence on foreigners to finance the substantial US budget deficits means that the US must be prepared to raise interests rates which, at some point, will choke off domestic borrowing and consumption, throwing the US economy into recession. [xviii]

    Yet this threat is not just to the United States -- according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), it is a threat to the global economy. A story about a then-recently issued report by the IMF begins, "With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy ." The report suggested that net financial obligations of the US to the rest of the world could equal 40 per cent of its total economy if nothing was done about it in a few years, "an unprecedented level of external debt for a larger industrial country" according to the report. What was perhaps even more shocking than what the report said was which institution said it: "The IMF has often been accused of being an adjunct of the United States , its largest shareholder" (Becker and Andrews, 2004).

    Other analysts go further. After discussing the increasingly risky nature of global investing, and noting that "The investor managers of private equity funds and major banks have displaced national banks and international bodies such as the IMF," Gabriel Kolko (2007) quotes Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley's chief economist, on April 24, 2007: "a major financial crisis seemed imminent and that the global institutions that could forestall it, including the IMF, the World Bank and other mechanisms of the international financial architecture, were utterly inadequate." Kolko recognizes that things may not collapse immediately, and that analysts could be wrong, but still concludes, "the transformation of the global financial system will sooner or later lead to dire results" (Kolko, 2007: 5).

    What might happen if investors decided to take their money out of US Treasuries and, say, invest in Euro-based bonds? The US would be in big trouble, would be forced to raise its interest rates even higher than it wants -- leading to possibly a severe recession -- and if investors really shifted their money, the US could be observably bankrupt; the curtain hiding the "little man" would be opened, and he would be observable to all.

    Why would investors rather shift their investment money into Euro-bonds instead of US Treasuries? Well, obviously, one measure is the perceived strength of the US economy. To get a good idea of how solid a country's economy is, one looks at things such as budget deficits, but perhaps even more importantly balance of trade: how well is this economy doing in comparison with other countries?

    The US international balance of trade is in the red and is worsening: -$717 billion in 2005. In 1991, it was -$31 billion. Since 1998, the US trade balance has set a new record for being in the hole every year, except during 2001, and then breaking the all time high the very next year! -$165 B in 1998; -$263 B in 1999; -$378 B in 2000; only -$362 B in 2001; -$421 B in 2002; -$494 B in 2003; -$617 B in 2004; and - $717 B in 2005 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-103). According to the Census Department, the balance of trade in 2006 was -$759 billion (US Census Bureau, 2007).

    And the US current account balance, the broadest measure of a country's international financial situation -- which includes investment inside and outside the US in addition to balance of trade -- is even worse: it was -$805 B in 2005, or 6.4 per cent of national income. "The bottom line is that a current account deficit of this unparalleled magnitude is unsustainable and there is no hope of it being painlessly resolved through higher exports alone," according to one analyst (quoted in Swann, 2006). Scott notes that the current account deficit in 2006 was -$857 billion (Scott, 2007a: 8, fn. 1). "In effect, the United States is living beyond its means and selling off national assets to pay its bills" (Scott, 2007b: 1). [xix]

    In addition, during mid-2007, there was a bursting of a domestic "housing bubble," which has threatened domestic economic well-being but that ultimately threatens the well-being of global financial markets. There had been a tremendous run-up in US housing values since 1995 -- with an increase of more than 70 per cent after adjusting for the rate of inflation -- and this had created "more than $8 trillion in housing wealth compared with a scenario in which house prices had continued to rise at the same rate of inflation," which they had done for over 100 years, between 1890 and 1995 (Baker, 2007: 8).

    This led to a massive oversupply of housing, accompanied with falling house prices: according to Dean Baker, "the peak inventory of unsold new homes of 573,000 in July 2006 was more than 50 per cent higher than the previous peak of 377,000 in May of 1989" (Baker, 2007: 12-13). This caused massive problems in the sub-prime housing market -- estimates are that almost $2 trillion in sub-prime loans were made during 2005-06, and that about $325 billion of these loans will default, with more than 1 million people losing their homes (Liedtke, 2007) -- but these problems are not confined to the sub-prime loan category: because sub-prime and "Alt-A" mortgages (the category immediately above sub-prime) financed 40 per cent of the housing market in 2006, "it is almost inevitable that the problems will spill over into the rest of the market" (Baker, 2007: 15). And Business Week agrees: "Subprime woes have moved far beyond the mortgage industry." It notes that at least five hedge funds have gone out of business, corporate loans and junk bonds have been hurt, and the leveraged buyout market has been hurt (Goldstein and Henry, 2007).

    David Leonhardt (2007) agrees with the continuing threat to the financial industry. Discussing "adjustable rate mortgages" -- where interest rates start out low, but reset to higher rates, resulting in higher mortgage payments to the borrower -- he points out that about $50 billion of mortgages will reset during October 2007, and that this amount of resetting will remain over $30 billion monthly through September 2008. "In all," he writes," the interest rates on about $1 trillion worth of mortgages or 12 per cent of the nation's total, will reset for the first time this year or next."

    Why all of this is so important is because bankers have gotten incredibly "creative" in creating new mortgages, which they sell to home buyers. Then they bundle these obligations and sell to other financial institutions and which, in turn, create new securities (called derivatives) based on these questionable new mortgages. Yes, it is basically a legal ponzi scheme, but it requires the continuous selling and buying of these derivatives to keep working: in early August 2007, however, liquidity -- especially "financial instruments backed by home mortgages" -- dried up, as no one wanted to buy these instruments (Krugman, 2007). The US Federal Research and the European Central Bank felt it necessary to pump over $100 billion into the financial markets in mid-August 2007 to keep the international economy solvent (Norris, 2007).

    So, economically, this country is in terrible shape -- with no solution in sight.

    On top of this -- as if all of this is not bad enough -- the Bush Administration is asking for another $481.4 billion for the Pentagon's base budget, which it notes is "a 62 per cent increase over 2001." Further, the Administration seeks an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for 2007 and another $141.7 billion for 2008 to help fund the "Global War on Terror" and US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (US Government, 2007). According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2006, the US "defense" spending was equivalent to 46 per cent of all military spending in the world, meaning that almost more money is provided for the US military in one year than is spent by the militaries of all the other countries in the world combined (SIPRI, 2007).

    And SIPRI's accounting doesn't include the $500 billion spent so far, approximately, on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq .

    In short, not only have things gotten worse for American working people since 1973 -- and especially after 1982, with the imposition of neoliberal economic policies by institutions of the US Government -- but on-going Federal budget deficits, the escalating National Debt, the need to attract foreign money into US Treasuries, the financial market "meltdown" as well as the massive amounts of money being channeled to continue the Empire, all suggest that not only will intensifying social problems not be addressed, but will get worse for the foreseeable future.

    4) Synopsis

    This analysis provides an extensive look at the impact of neoliberal economic policies enacted in the United States on American working people. These neoliberal economic policies have been enacted as a conscious strategy by US corporate leaders and their governmental allies in both major political parties as a way to address intensifying globalization while seeking to maintain US dominance over the global political economy.

    While it will be a while before anyone can determine success or failure overall of this elite strategy but, because of is global-historical perspective, sufficient evidence is already available to evaluate the affects of these policies on American working people. For the non-elites of this country, these policies have had a deleterious impact and they are getting worse. Employment data in manufacturing, worsening since 1979 but especially since 2000 (see Aronowitz, 2005), has been horrific -- and since this has been the traditional path for non-college educated workers to be able to support themselves and their families, and provide for their children, this data suggests social catastrophe for many -- see Rubin (1995), Barnes (2005), and Bageant (2007), and accounts in Finnegan (1998) and Lipper (2004) that support this -- because comparable jobs available to these workers are not being created. Thus, the problem is not just that people are losing previously stable, good-paying jobs -- as bad as that is -- but that there is nothing being created to replace these lost jobs, and there is not even a social safety net in many cases that can generally cushion the blow (see Wilson, 1996; Appelbaum, Bernhardt, and Murnane, eds., 2003).

    Yet the impact of these social changes has not been limited to only blue-collar workers, although the impact has been arguably greatest upon them. The overall economic growth of the society has been so limited since 1973, and the results increasingly being unequally distributed since then, that the entire society is becoming more and more unequal: each of the four bottom quintiles -- the bottom 80 per cent of families -- has seen a decrease in the amount of family income available to each quintile between 2001-05. This not only increases inequality and resulting resentments -- including criminal behaviors -- but it also produces deleterious affects on individual and social health (Kawachi, Kennedy and Wilkinson, eds., 1999; Eitzen and Eitzen Smith, 2003). And, as shown above, this level of inequality is much more comparable internationally to "developing" countries rather than "developed" ones.

    When this material is joined with material on the US budget, and especially the US National Debt, it is clear that these "problems" are not the product of individual failure, but of a social order that is increasingly unsustainable. While we have no idea of what it will take before the US economy will implode, all indications are that US elites are speeding up a run-away train of debt combined with job-destroying technology and off-shoring production, creating a worsening balance of trade with the rest of the world and a worsening current account, with an unstable housing market and intensifying militarism and an increasingly antagonistic foreign policy: it is like they are building a bridge over an abyss, with a train increasingly speeding up as it travels toward the bridge, and crucial indicators suggest that the bridge cannot be completed in time.

    Whether the American public will notice and demand a radical change in time is not certain -- it will not be enough to simply slow the train down, but it must turn down an alternative track (see Albert, 2003; Woodin and Lucas, 2004; Starr, 2005) -- but it is almost certain that foreign investors will. Should they not be able to get the interest rates here available elsewhere in the "developed" parts of the world, investors will shift their investments, causing more damage to working people in the United States .

    And when this economic-focused analysis is joined with an environmental one -- George Monbiot (2007) reports that the best science available argues that industrialized countries have to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent by the year 2030 if we are to have a chance to stop global warming -- then it is clear that US society is facing a period of serious social instability.

    5) Conclusion

    This article has argued that the situation for working people in the United States, propelled by the general governmental adoption of neoliberal economic policies, is getting worse -- and there is no end in sight. The current situation and historical change have been presented and discussed. Further, an examination and analysis of directly relevant US economic policies have been presented, and there has been nothing in this analysis that suggests a radical, but necessary, change by US elected officials is in sight. In other words, working people in this country are in bad shape generally -- and it is worse for workers of color than for white workers -- and there is nothing within the established social order that suggests needed changes will be effected.

    The neoliberal economic policies enacted by US corporate and government leaders has been a social disaster for increasing numbers of families in the United States .

    Globalization for profit -- or what could be better claimed to be "globalization from above" -- and its resulting neoliberal economic policies have long-been recognized as being a disaster for most countries in the Global South. This study argues that this top-down globalization and the accompanying neoliberal economic policies has been a disaster for working people in northern countries as well, and most particularly in the United States .

    The political implications from these findings remains to be seen. Surely, one argument is not only that another world is possible, but that it is essential.

    © Kim Scipes, Ph.D.

    [Kim Scipes is assistant professor of sociology , Purdue University, North Central, Westville , IN 46391. The author's web site is at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes .This paper was given at the 2009 Annual Conference of the United Association for Labor Education at the National Labor College in Silver Spring , MD. It has been posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with Kim Scipes' permission.]

    * * *

    Note to labor educators: This is a very different approach than you usually take. While presenting a "big picture," this does not suggest what you are doing is "wrong" or "bad." What it suggests, however, is that the traditional labor education approach is too limited: this suggests that your work is valuable but that you need to put it into a much larger context than is generally done, and that it is in the interaction between your work and this that we each can think out the ways to go forward. This is presented in the spirit of respect for the important work that each of you do on a daily basis.

    [Oct 01, 2017] Neoliberalism Is a Political Project

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've always treated neoliberalism as a political project carried out by the corporate capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards the end of the 1960s into the 1970s. They desperately wanted to launch a political project that would curb the power of labor. ..."
    "... In many respects the project was a counterrevolutionary project. It would nip in the bud what, at that time, were revolutionary movements in much of the developing world ..."
    "... So in that situation there was, in effect, a global threat to the power of the corporate capitalist class and therefore the question was, What to do?. The ruling class wasn't omniscient but they recognized that there were a number of fronts on which they had to struggle: the ideological front, the political front, and above all they had to struggle to curb the power of labor by whatever means possible. Out of this there emerged a political project which I would call neoliberalism. ..."
    "... The ideological front amounted to following the advice of a guy named Lewis Powell . He wrote a memo saying that things had gone too far, that capital needed a collective project. The memo helped mobilize the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. ..."
    "... Ideas were also important to the ideological front. The judgment at that time was that universities were impossible to organize because the student movement was too strong and the faculty too liberal-minded, so they set up all of these think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Ohlin Foundation. These think tanks brought in the ideas of Freidrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and supply-side economics. ..."
    "... This process took a long time. I think now we've reached a point where you don't need something like the Heritage Foundation anymore. Universities have pretty much been taken over by the neoliberal projects surrounding them. ..."
    "... With respect to labor, the challenge was to make domestic labor competitive with global labor. One way was to open up immigration. In the 1960s, for example, Germans were importing Turkish labor, the French Maghrebian labor, the British colonial labor. But this created a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest. ..."
    "... Instead they chose the other way -- to take capital to where the low-wage labor forces were. But for globalization to work you had to reduce tariffs and empower finance capital, because finance capital is the most mobile form of capital. So finance capital and things like floating currencies became critical to curbing labor. ..."
    "... At the same time, ideological projects to privatize and deregulate created unemployment. So, unemployment at home and offshoring taking the jobs abroad, and a third component: technological change , deindustrialization through automation and robotization. That was the strategy to squash labor. ..."
    "... It was an ideological assault but also an economic assault. To me this is what neoliberalism was about: it was that political project ..."
    "... I think they just intuitively said, We gotta crush labor, how do we do it? And they found that there was a legitimizing theory out there, which would support that. ..."
    Oct 01, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

    I've always treated neoliberalism as a political project carried out by the corporate capitalist class as they felt intensely threatened both politically and economically towards the end of the 1960s into the 1970s. They desperately wanted to launch a political project that would curb the power of labor.

    In many respects the project was a counterrevolutionary project. It would nip in the bud what, at that time, were revolutionary movements in much of the developing world -- Mozambique, Angola, China etc. -- but also a rising tide of communist influences in countries like Italy and France and, to a lesser degree, the threat of a revival of that in Spain.

    Even in the United States, trade unions had produced a Democratic Congress that was quite radical in its intent. In the early 1970s they, along with other social movements, forced a slew of reforms and reformist initiatives which were anti-corporate: the Environmental Protection Agency , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, consumer protections, and a whole set of things around empowering labor even more than it had been empowered before.

    So in that situation there was, in effect, a global threat to the power of the corporate capitalist class and therefore the question was, What to do?. The ruling class wasn't omniscient but they recognized that there were a number of fronts on which they had to struggle: the ideological front, the political front, and above all they had to struggle to curb the power of labor by whatever means possible. Out of this there emerged a political project which I would call neoliberalism.

    BSR Can you talk a bit about the ideological and political fronts and the attacks on labor? DH The ideological front amounted to following the advice of a guy named Lewis Powell . He wrote a memo saying that things had gone too far, that capital needed a collective project. The memo helped mobilize the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

    Ideas were also important to the ideological front. The judgment at that time was that universities were impossible to organize because the student movement was too strong and the faculty too liberal-minded, so they set up all of these think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Ohlin Foundation. These think tanks brought in the ideas of Freidrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and supply-side economics.

    The idea was to have these think tanks do serious research and some of them did -- for instance, the National Bureau of Economic Research was a privately funded institution that did extremely good and thorough research. This research would then be published independently and it would influence the press and bit by bit it would surround and infiltrate the universities.

    This process took a long time. I think now we've reached a point where you don't need something like the Heritage Foundation anymore. Universities have pretty much been taken over by the neoliberal projects surrounding them.

    With respect to labor, the challenge was to make domestic labor competitive with global labor. One way was to open up immigration. In the 1960s, for example, Germans were importing Turkish labor, the French Maghrebian labor, the British colonial labor. But this created a great deal of dissatisfaction and unrest.

    Instead they chose the other way -- to take capital to where the low-wage labor forces were. But for globalization to work you had to reduce tariffs and empower finance capital, because finance capital is the most mobile form of capital. So finance capital and things like floating currencies became critical to curbing labor.

    At the same time, ideological projects to privatize and deregulate created unemployment. So, unemployment at home and offshoring taking the jobs abroad, and a third component: technological change , deindustrialization through automation and robotization. That was the strategy to squash labor.

    It was an ideological assault but also an economic assault. To me this is what neoliberalism was about: it was that political project, and I think the bourgeoisie or the corporate capitalist class put it into motion bit by bit.

    I don't think they started out by reading Hayek or anything, I think they just intuitively said, We gotta crush labor, how do we do it? And they found that there was a legitimizing theory out there, which would support that.

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
    "... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
    "... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
    "... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
    "... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
    "... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
    "... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
    "... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
    "... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
    "... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
    "... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
    "... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
    "... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
    "... This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."
    "... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
    "... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
    Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Jenny G · 3 days ago

    Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.

    Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.

    I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished" party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment to the country.

    Felix · 4 days ago
    The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint.
    follyofwar · 3 days ago
    Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats.
    olde reb · 3 days ago
    What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.

    Detailed in --. http://farmwars.info/?p=15338 . A FACE FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT

    The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.

    Guysth · 3 days ago
    I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.

    Peace is not in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis, and this could not be allowed to happen .

    Same $hit different pile.

    doray · 3 days ago
    Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge.
    astraeaisabella · 3 days ago
    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/25... This may seem relevant, but considering Trump's visit to SAudi Arabia and then immediately "Israel", you might find it interesting.
    follyofwar · 3 days ago

    David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.

    But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.

    RedRubies · 3 days ago
    Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.

    When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.

    The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.

    Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on (http://headlinebits.com/2017-06-21/deep-state-hillary-clinton-staffers-still-have-security-clearances-access-to-sensitive-governmen.AlsHBgBSVVwAV1FWVwdSAwBWAg8HXQYE.html) .

    You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!

    The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.

    Stephen M. St. John · 3 days ago

    "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.

    This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .

    Schlüter 91p · 3 days ago
    Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe...
    Dick · 3 days ago
    Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.

    Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.

    [Sep 23, 2017] In simple terms, MSM owners decide that a particular topic is a taboo subject and filter everything related to it out

    Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Miro23 > > , September 5, 2016 at 10:15 pm GMT

    @Mr. Anon

    "Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer – could believe in the official version of 9/11."

    That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact believe just that.

    Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .

    In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.

    [Sep 23, 2017] MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line are career ending moves .

    Notable quotes:
    "... In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position: ..."
    "... In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Ron Unz > , September 6, 2016 at 8:33 pm GMT

    @Miro23

    Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .

    In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and they decide what gets published.

    Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind

    In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:

    http://www.unz.com/article/911-the-mother-of-all-coincidences/

    In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html

    [Sep 23, 2017] Marginalization of other opinions is important, so that those few who become aware of a conspiracy do not have enough social capital to muster any significant action against it

    Notable quotes:
    "... The history of the 20th and 21st centuries is largely what it is because of political conspiracies, wherein the state does one thing or another using covert methods and then sells the opposite story to the gullible public. It is basically a form of military deception by other means. ..."
    "... There is no doubt that the public (the real enemy of the state) sure are gullible. ..."
    "... a conspiracy, as Mr Unz indicates, is just a perjorative term used by the state to divert attention from what are otherwise normal covert operations. The real issue is that these events have had massive, gigantic global consequences but operate completely below the radar of the intellectual classes. ..."
    "... This is an old clip showing admittance of the CIA that they use the mainstream media to manipulate the thoughts and ideas of American citizens in the USA. This has not changed obviously and is good to know happened in the past due to our reality today. http://youtu.be/5ED63A_hcd0 ..."
    "... 9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony in full: https://www.c-span.org/video/?408953-1/tom-charles-huston-testimony-church-committee ..."
    "... Secrecy is important to the extent that people would be in a position to thwart the conspiracy should they come to know about it. To minimize the need for secrecy, the conspirators might try to foster a general, childlike ignorance about public affairs, so that the public would not recognize a conspiracy even if it were being discussed openly. ..."
    "... In this regard, the capture of major media (pace Mr. Unz) would be key to achieving this aim. Marginalization is another strategy, so that those few who become aware of a conspiracy do not have enough social capital to muster any significant action against it. ..."
    "... "The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys. ..."
    "... following the collapse of Soviets, they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan, and even in Malayasia back in 1992. ..."
    "... Conspiracy theory -- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced by the government all the time. It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda . The moment they use false narrative, weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing the authorities, abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propaganda preaching journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy. ..."
    Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Kirt > , September 5, 2016 at 4:26 am GMT

    Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.

    Langley > , September 23, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT

    The phrase "conspiracy theory" seems to have existed before 1960.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=conspiracy+theories&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cconspiracy%20theories%3B%2Cc0

    However, the CIA may have stumbled across it and used it to their advantage.

    Anon > , Disclaimer September 22, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

    The history of the 20th and 21st centuries is largely what it is because of political conspiracies, wherein the state does one thing or another using covert methods and then sells the opposite story to the gullible public. It is basically a form of military deception by other means.

    There is no doubt that the public (the real enemy of the state) sure are gullible. I think Mr Unz is trying to work out in his own mind why it is that the sell job always works and is so successful.

    Consider the following false flag events:

    These events are all clearly 'conspiracies', but a conspiracy, as Mr Unz indicates, is just a perjorative term used by the state to divert attention from what are otherwise normal covert operations. The real issue is that these events have had massive, gigantic global consequences but operate completely below the radar of the intellectual classes.

    Agent76 > , December 26, 2016 at 3:46 pm GMT

    (1975) CIA Admits Using News To Manipulate the USA

    This is an old clip showing admittance of the CIA that they use the mainstream media to manipulate the thoughts and ideas of American citizens in the USA. This has not changed obviously and is good to know happened in the past due to our reality today. http://youtu.be/5ED63A_hcd0

    9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony in full: https://www.c-span.org/video/?408953-1/tom-charles-huston-testimony-church-committee

    Greg > , December 25, 2016 at 6:34 pm GMT

    @Kirt

    ... ... ...

    Secrecy is important to the extent that people would be in a position to thwart the conspiracy should they come to know about it. To minimize the need for secrecy, the conspirators might try to foster a general, childlike ignorance about public affairs, so that the public would not recognize a conspiracy even if it were being discussed openly.

    In this regard, the capture of major media (pace Mr. Unz) would be key to achieving this aim. Marginalization is another strategy, so that those few who become aware of a conspiracy do not have enough social capital to muster any significant action against it. Believing that a conspiracy needs secrecy is the perhaps optimistic belief that neither dumbing down the general public nor marginalizing the watchdogs is sufficient: there's still a significant chance that public exposure could derail the conspirators.

    KA > , September 12, 2016 at 2:58 pm GMT

    @Boris

    after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story
    As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.

    "The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.

    A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14)

    The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship in Algeria.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177

    Printing a ticket and getting a Passport ,if all that you have, then you are in the right league . Join those in NYT, WaPo, Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland, because following the collapse of Soviets, they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan, and even in Malayasia back in 1992.

    Conspiracy theory -- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced by the government all the time. It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda . The moment they use false narrative, weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing the authorities, abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propaganda preaching journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy. It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory.

    KA > , September 12, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT

    The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam . Its a multilayered multi focal interconnected open production of a vast conspiracy – achieved without any shred of evidence or even plausible reason for the existence of any such threat .

    This is a quote from an article published in 1992 and quotes 90 sources .

    " In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.(13)

    THE GREEN PERIL
    Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
    Leon T Hadar ,a former bureau chief for Jerusalem Post.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html

    "WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Washington Times, ABC news and Economist all gathered the Islamic experts out of the same offices that used to house the Soviet experts, painted them green removed the red markings and asked them to follow the direction . ( Well I made this up But that's exactly what happened .)

    [Sep 23, 2017] A conspiracy theory is a theory based on facts but without MSM backing. Theres no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
    "... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
    www.unz.com
    LondonBob > , September 6, 2016 at 5:39 pm GMT

    @Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,

    Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .

    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management.

    Abraham > , September 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm GMT

    @Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

    Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

    The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

    A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.

    Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.

    Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.

    For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

    It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.

    The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.

    How is this a problem?

    WorkingClass > , September 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm GMT

    The CIA is the presidents private secret army. Nothing it does is legal.

    Ron Unz > , September 6, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT

    For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:

    https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/

    Boris > , September 6, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT

    @biz

    He is really very good.

    He has a book https://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Association-Deception-Self-Deceit-America/product-reviews/098213150X/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent

    anti_republocrat > , September 7, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT

    @Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

    Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7

    Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s ** t up.

    Nathan Hale > , September 7, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT

    @Jason Liu

    ...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders.

    NoseytheDuke > , September 7, 2016 at 4:32 am GMT

    @Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.

    People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".

    Gerald Massey

    Ed Rankin > , Website September 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT

    In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of "talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:

    I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments, newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.

    Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government, foundations and other institutions of authority.

    While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative, but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has acknowledged ties to the CIA

    With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if in fact, it ever ceased.

    Bill Jones > , September 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm GMT

    A nice little piece on one of the players in the big conspiracy: https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-philip-zelikow/

    Marie > , September 8, 2016 at 4:01 am GMT

    Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.

    I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.

    It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course

    Hippopotamusdrome > , September 9, 2016 at 8:21 am GMT

    @biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.

    The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 23, 2017] American Pravda How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories" by Ron Unz

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss. ..."
    "... The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther. ..."
    "... It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by -- on the payroll of – the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground. ..."
    "... Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in. ..."
    Sep 05, 2016 | www.unz.com

    A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.

    Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers!from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption!could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.

    Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.

    Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.

    one of our most prominent scholars and public intellectuals had been historian Charles Beard , whose influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable academic enterprise.

    However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European political philosophers, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss , gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant in public life.

    Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical matters.

    Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.

    Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual as politically influential as left-liberal financier George Soros claiming to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.

    So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable discourse.

    Kirt > , September 5, 2016 at 4:26 am GMT

    Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.

    Pat Casey > , September 5, 2016 at 4:55 am GMT

    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

    –William Casey, CIA Director, from a first staff meeting in 1981

    You can read the context of that quote according to the person who claims to be its original source here:

    https://www.quora.com/Did-William-Casey-CIA-Director-really-say-Well-know-our-disinformation-program-is-complete-when-everything-the-American-public-believes-is-false

    I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets. Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA analysts were doing the same thing with ours.

    FKA Max > , September 5, 2016 at 4:56 am GMT

    Mr. Unz,

    this study/paper might by of interest to you: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/CONSPIRE.doc

    [MORE]

    Note: This paper was published in Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994. This is the original typescript sent to the journal, it does not include any editorial changes that may have been made. The journal itself is not available online, to my knowledge.

    Belief in Conspiracy Theories

    Ted Goertzel1

    Running Head: Belief in Conspiracy Theories.

    KEY WORDS: conspiracy theories, anomia, trust

    Table Three
    Means Scores of Racial/Ethnic Groups on Attitude Scales
    White[W] Hispanic[H] Black[B]
    Scale
    Belief in Conspiracies 2.5[W] 2.8[H] 3.3[B]
    Anomia 3.4[W] 3.8[H] 4.1[B]
    Trust 3.7[W] 3.3[H] 3.1[B]
    Note: All scales varied from 1 to 5, with 3 as a neutral score.

    One of the most interesting discussions of the paper:

    It is puzzling that conspiratorial thinking has been overlooked in the extensive research on authoritarianism which has dominated quantitative work in political psychology since the 1950s. One possible explanation is that much of this work focuses on right-wing authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1988), while conspiratorial thinking is characteristic of alienated thinkers on both the right and the left (Citrin, et al., 1975; Graumann, 1987; Berlet, 1992). Even more surprisingly, however, conspiratorial thinking has not been a focus of the efforts to measure "left-wing authoritarianism" (Stone, 1980; Eysenck, 1981; LeVasseur & Gold, 1993) or of research with the "dogmatism" concept (Rokeach, 1960) which was intended to overcome the ideological bias in authoritarianism measures.
    On a more fundamental level, the difficulty with existing research traditions may be their focus on the content of beliefs rather than the res[p]ondent's cognitive processes or emotional makeup. As I have argued elsewhere (Goertzel, 1987), most studies of authoritarianism simply ask people what they believe and then assume that these beliefs must be based on underlying psychological processes which go unmeasured. Since these scales ask mostly about beliefs held by those on the right, it is not surprising that they find authoritarianism to be a right-wing phenomenon. Research with projective tests (Rothman and Lichter, 1982) and biographical materials (Goertzel, 1992), on the other hand, has confirmed that many aspects of authoritarian thinking can be found on both the left and the right.

    Lot > , September 5, 2016 at 5:14 am GMT

    Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

    Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

    The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.

    Chief Seattle > , September 5, 2016 at 5:17 am GMT

    So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

    Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.

    Miro23 > , September 5, 2016 at 5:20 am GMT

    The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.

    For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.

    Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops – or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory?

    Emblematic > , September 5, 2016 at 7:17 am GMT

    I get the sense Ron's building up to something. For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':

    polistra > , September 5, 2016 at 8:03 am GMT

    Simplifying one "contradiction": Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian. Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary goal.

    At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.

    smiddy > , September 5, 2016 at 8:13 am GMT

    Mr. Unz's direct confrontation with this topic leads me to feel a sense of sentimentality or coming full circle as my "red-pilled" experience literally started with his The Myth of American Meritocracy a little over 2 years ago (I finally looked into the "white privilege" I was "highly exposed" to in college).

    Long story short, I was a lazy liberal beforehand, now a highly motivated conservative; nothing helps one get their ish together better than understanding the trajectory at which our society is heading. The Myth of American Meritocracy singularly led me to have a more open mind in understanding how non-congruent the mainstream narrative can be with man's shared universal reality, and having spent way too much time in school learning research methodology, I finally applied it via whim thereafter to criminal statistics (but we know where this story ends), then WW2, the mainstream narrative of which I grew up worshiping

    For someone who, when I was naive, hung on to every word one heard or read in the countless amount of hours I've spent in American history classes, for me to learn the hard way of Operation Keelhaul, the Haavara Agreement, the disease epidemic, the migrant crisis (before hand), the hand THE banksters probably played (in playing both sides), and so on, it becomes all too clear how amazingly systematically corrupt our academic system has become. Not once did I ever hear one smidgen about those extremely large plot points; they're so consistently implicitly left out of the script its terrifying.

    Alternating to my freshman year of high school now, when I was still naive, I complained to our just hired 22 year old (conveniently) Jewish teacher (fresh out of the Ivy League but back to sacrifice where he had graduated high school, he had always reminded us) over having to read about the Little Rock 9 and Ann Frank for literally (in my case) the 4th time (each). Point is, even when I was entirely clueless, and had no defensive instinct at all, it still didn't feel healthy to read over and over again; I was emotionally exhausted already. I accepted their stories at face value, faced the guilt, and just wanted to move on, yet according to my teacher I "lacked empathy" (so if only we were taught about how the Irish were treated in the 17th we'd be fine). It really is this kind of dwelling on the past that has been institutionalized, and its borderline brain-washing, regardless of the said tragedy's validity.

    There is one such particular event of WW2 that, once naive, I've personally cried over more than any other historical event easily (perhaps even more than anything subjectively experienced), much in thanks to programmed televising So what's so weird about all of this, is its like a meta-intellectual betrayal, but with all the emotional connotations of a woman who wronged you in all the worse ways (and she's inevitably waiting in seemingly every dark corner of history you delve into, thus the "endless rabbit hole" you fall through). And its this implicit brand of deceit that is patently feminine which can be inductively read from the MSM to "read the tea leaves"

    I could go on and on but really I initially just wanted to thank you Mr. Unz, your publication, and your current and past writing staff. I don't even want to imagine a world where I had never stumbled upon your work!

    JL > , September 5, 2016 at 10:40 am GMT

    Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.

    Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".

    Gene Tuttle > , September 5, 2016 at 10:41 am GMT

    I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.

    Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about

    "a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."

    The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" ! I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.

    But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests.

    anonymous > , Disclaimer September 5, 2016 at 12:24 pm GMT

    One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.

    The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?

    Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.

    Pat Casey > , September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT

    @Emblematic I get the sense Ron's building up to something.

    For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I

    I get the sense Ron's building up to something.

    One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11! so that base is covered; no need to say more about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra was about.

    Wizard of Oz > , September 5, 2016 at 12:44 pm GMT

    @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.

    For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.

    Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory? I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your sources?

    Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
    happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?

    SolontoCroesus > , September 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm GMT

    @anonymous One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be quite deliberate.
    The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing ideas. Paid trolls and others?
    Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.

    Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.

    Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or ! beyond the usual understandings about human nature ! is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?

    Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning ! by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?

    Is there the possibility of redemption?

    Wizard of Oz > , September 5, 2016 at 2:03 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus


    Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
    Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?

    Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?

    Is there the possibility of redemption? It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start. Some subjects were difficult – like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery.

    godfree roberts > , September 5, 2016 at 2:18 pm GMT

    Agreed. This is an exemplary piece of scholarship and also an enthralling re-telling of our recent past. Highly recommended.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT

    Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.

    The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?–is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:

    Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.

    As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).

    If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.

    None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").

    You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.

    Connecticut Famer > , September 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm GMT

    @Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.

    Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about

    "a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
    The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.

    But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests. "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."

    Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.

    Jacques Sheete > , September 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm GMT

    Superb article.

    It's good to see that Mr. Beard is getting some well deserved good press. It's also good to have people put on alert about Leo Strauss; his name should be a household word, and that of derision. I first learned of the fool at LewRockwell.com, and I feel it's worth investigating him as a source of the goofy neocon outlook that the world's been suffering under for decades. "Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient world nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power. Straussian neoconservatism is not conservatism as it has ever been understood in America or anywhere else "

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/

    Paul Jolliffe > , September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT

    Mr. Unz,

    Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .

    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    Clearpoint > , September 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm GMT

    Popper and Strauss. Neoliberal thought unites with neoconservative thought. Explicitly different rationales, but the same goals and the same method of achieving those goals. Sounds like target marketing of the two biggest target markets of American exceptionalism – dumb and dumber. Apparently critical thinkers are a minority that they believe can be easily marginalized.

    John Jeremiah Smith > , September 5, 2016 at 2:58 pm GMT

    @JL Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times.

    Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".

    The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.

    Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.

    There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.

    John Jeremiah Smith > , September 5, 2016 at 3:05 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus

    Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
    Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?

    Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?

    Is there the possibility of redemption?

    Is there the possibility of redemption?

    Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity to redeem?

    biz > , September 5, 2016 at 3:10 pm GMT

    @John Jeremiah Smith

    The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
    LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory". No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book .
    CanSpeccy > , Website September 5, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT

    Good epistemological analysis.

    The great flaw in the Western system of "democratic" government is that hardly anyone knows the meaning of the word "epistemology", let alone have any grasp of the underlying challenge of knowing what they know, or rather knowing how little they know beyond what they know from direct personal experience. This is a challenge made vastly more difficult in the modern age when almost everything we know is derived not from personal experience, or from other people of whose character and intellectual competence we have some personal knowledge, but from the arrangement of ink on paper or of pixels on a video screen. To this problem, there is probably no solution, although either a sharp restriction of the franchise to those of some maturity and education, or a division of the franchise according to what each particular individual could be expected to know something about, would be a step in the right direction.

    As it is, we will, inevitably, continue to be the target of high powered manipulation by corporate owned media and other powerful interests.

    Professor Lance Haven de Smith, whose book you mention is an expert on SCADS, or state crimes against democracy. An article by him on this topic is available here . There is some interesting academic material about SCADs here .

    nsa > , September 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT

    In spook circles, leaving [false] clues is referred to as inoculation. Refer to the work of Bill McGuire in the late 50s and early 60s. For example, we here in Langley and Ft. Meade have left intact on the internet the early picture of the 20′ entry hole left by the "757″ in the facade of the pentagon before the explosion and complete collapse of the exterior wall ..inviting the conspiratorial question " where are the wings, the mangled cadavers, the tail?". This is all just too easy

    Alden > , September 5, 2016 at 3:27 pm GMT

    Highly reccomend Chris Buckley's book. "Little Green Men" The plot is that the entire UFO thing was set up after WW3 by the DOJ to keep the money flowing. Like all Buckley's books, it's a great read. I stopped believing in anything written in newspapers around 1966 because they were so pro black criminal and anti police

    Have fun on Labor Day

    John Jeremiah Smith > , September 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm GMT

    @biz No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book .

    No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.

    Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy theory"?

    "A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."

    Similar, agreed, but with noteworthy differences.

    SolontoCroesus > , September 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm GMT

    @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.

    The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:

    Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
    As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).

    If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.

    None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").

    You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings. C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.

    One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt

    Laurel > , September 5, 2016 at 4:22 pm GMT

    The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther.

    SolontoCroesus > , September 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.

    One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."

    It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by -- on the payroll of – the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 4:25 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.

    One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book, Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt -- something Schmitt himself acknowledged.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 4:42 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952 review of Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . . .for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."

    ---

    It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by -- on the payroll of - the CIA while still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground. So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns–data-driven social science–were not Strauss's. And so on and on.

    But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.

    5371 > , September 5, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT

    @Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments. Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something Schmitt himself acknowledged. This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 4:54 pm GMT

    @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics. Schmitt disagreed with you.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm GMT

    @5371 This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative one whose real sweet spot was academic politics. At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?

    Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics -- i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?

    Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through.

    Hibernian > , September 5, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

    @anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.

    FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941, the date Hitler declared war on the USA.

    While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany. For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen? "FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."

    Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser number?

    SolontoCroesus > , September 5, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT

    @Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's concerns -- data-driven social science -- were not Strauss's. And so on and on.

    But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.

    The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.

    Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?

    The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.

    Carlton Meyer > , Website September 5, 2016 at 5:20 pm GMT

    Some conspiracies are eventually acknowledged. For recent examples, our government finally admitted that our CIA overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. The sinking of the Lusitania because it carried tons of munitions and weapons during WW I has been mostly accepted since 1982, after the sunken ship was discovered and searched by divers. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica:

    "The Lusitania was carrying a cargo of rifle ammunition and shells (together about 173 tons), and the Germans, who had circulated warnings that the ship would be sunk, felt themselves fully justified in attacking a vessel that was furthering the war aims of their enemy. The German government also felt that, in view of the vulnerability of U-boats while on the surface and the British announcement of intentions to arm merchant ships, prior warning of potential targets was impractical."

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lusitania-British-ship

    One of the newest has got little attention, the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was a computer guy leaking info to Wikileaks.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

    If we truly had aggressive news competition in the USA, this story would remain in the headlines, but of course its implications are not acceptable. However, stories about Russian hackers persist with no hard evidence.

    JL > , September 5, 2016 at 5:27 pm GMT

    @John Jeremiah Smith

    The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
    Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs will morph into politically-expressed contexts.

    There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo. I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.

    Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?

    There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.

    Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them.

    Jeffrey S. > , Website September 5, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

    Beard was an interesting guy, but's let's not forget that his central thesis regarding the founding of this country doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny:

    http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/10/10/charles-beard-living-legend-or-archaic-icon/

    Meanwhile, I think it helps to think about conspiracies philosophically ! rigorous thought can help clear up sloppy thinking (which is found in many such theories):

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/01/trouble-with-conspiracy-theories.html

    Mulegino1 > , September 5, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT

    With respect to conspiracies, there are two equally absurd extreme views which distract from reality: one is the childish rejection of all conspiracy theories and the other the childish belief that every appreciable newsworthy event with a political, economic or social impact is the result of a nefarious conspiracy. The truth, of course, is to be found in the middle....

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 5:43 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus

    The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't back it up.
    Can't back it up or has not done so, so far? The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky. I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted. As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says.
    Ron Unz > , September 5, 2016 at 5:44 pm GMT

    @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.

    The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:

    Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
    As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).

    If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.

    None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").

    You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings.

    Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you? .The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.

    I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.

    But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy

    It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me.

    Mulegino1 > , September 5, 2016 at 5:48 pm GMT

    @SolontoCroesus

    Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in.
    Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?

    Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did it happen?

    Is there the possibility of redemption? To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power. America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).

    Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded – thanks to the likes of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy Roosevelt, inter alia – and the nation went on to embrace the role of international arbiter and busybody, and became insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic results for the world.

    Sam Shama > , September 5, 2016 at 5:59 pm GMT

    @5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently. Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet. [Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]

    LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw?

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 6:00 pm GMT

    @Ron Unz

    Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
    I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.

    But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...

    It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me. The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.

    The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.

    Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.

    In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.

    And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.

    Robard > , September 5, 2016 at 6:04 pm GMT

    If government doesn't believe in conspiracies, why have secret services in the first place? Either they want to thwart conspiracies or they are creating their own or both.

    Jacques Sheete > , September 5, 2016 at 6:24 pm GMT

    @Ron Unz

    Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss. The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
    I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your own.

    But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think) Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...

    It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct me. While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.

    Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat trust.:

    Moronic Intellectuals
    By Thomas DiLorenzo

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/thomas-woods/the-neocon-godfather/

    John Jeremiah Smith > , September 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT

    @JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.

    Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like. Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?


    There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
    Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for them.

    Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.

    Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population contains 10,000 – 50,00o potential players, globally.

    It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture" of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy.

    Pat Casey > , September 5, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT

    @Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.

    The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli . Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19 and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything like this:


    Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
    As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians, liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy. There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim. Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration, which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).

    If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign policy hawk.

    None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy, with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").

    You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because there is no evidence of such in his writings. Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.

    I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.

    And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.

    Ron Unz > , September 5, 2016 at 6:34 pm GMT

    @Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.

    The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances, "matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism) with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on. An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.

    Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.

    In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer, I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make for Straussian universalism.

    And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's mouth.

    The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.

    Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.

    http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/

    Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions

    And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.

    Buzz Mohawk > , September 5, 2016 at 6:48 pm GMT

    By reading Ron's American Pravda series of columns, I am learning things that otherwise I would not have known. I am developing a clearer understanding of the real truth . This is an important contribution to my understanding of of reality! And I trust this because of the quality and earnestness of the source. This is all very much appreciated.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 6:50 pm GMT

    @Ron Unz

    The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work of William Altman.
    Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of Strauss's controversial missive.

    http://harpers.org/blog/2008/01/will-the-real-leo-strauss-please-stand-up/

    Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal," or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...

    And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer of the spark of the Roman thought.
    What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient and Modern .

    Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.

    However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar–and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness. But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.

    Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state." He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?

    Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed, he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to see not differently but further than the parties.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 6:54 pm GMT

    @Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem to be how Ron said it was.

    I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.

    And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah. The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).

    Yngvar > , September 5, 2016 at 6:59 pm GMT

    So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories."

    And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before JFK's assassination but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer: https://is.gd/GYioQZ

    utu > , September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT

    @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points). Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here.

    Erik Sieven > , September 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm GMT

    @Kirt Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy. "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil

    art guerrilla > , Website September 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm GMT

    @Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

    Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
    virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails
    what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like- probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff
    it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
    then why am i crying inside

    Pat Casey > , September 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm GMT

    @Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).

    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.

    That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.

    It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).

    You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.

    Jacques Sheete > , September 5, 2016 at 9:43 pm GMT

    @Pat Casey

    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
    That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.

    It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.

    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
    You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.

    I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.

    Love it.

    My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin 'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound "profound," and to be somebody.

    Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific, pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)

    I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return.

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 10:12 pm GMT

    @Pat Casey

    The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
    That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.

    It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains. Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic as that.


    You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
    You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew who he was writing for. Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.

    Konga > , September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT

    @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.

    For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.

    Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory? So true!
    But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus, shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong

    Decius > , September 5, 2016 at 10:17 pm GMT

    A good book, BTW, is Robert Howse's Leo Strauss: Man of Peace . Howse is liberal, FWIW.

    ten miles > , September 5, 2016 at 10:20 pm GMT

    One resents (first), and eventually hates whom they have to lie to. In what regard would our elites, in our electoral democracy, hold us voters in (by now)?
    Kinda answers itself doesn't it?

    map > , September 5, 2016 at 11:03 pm GMT

    Popper's point about conspiracy theories really makes no sense. This is the assumption that a conspiracy is like a start-up, one that requires lots of transparency to work because of the need to recruit members for the conspiracy. As soon as one member disagrees, the conspiracy falls apart.

    The problem is that a conspiracy is not like a start-up. The purpose of the start-up is the start-up itself. The purpose of the conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself. Conspiracies are simply vehicles by which like minded people actually find each other. The secrecy is built-in because they are like-minded.

    Kirt > , September 5, 2016 at 11:15 pm GMT

    @Erik Sieven "Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil "probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"

    Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy".

    Ron Unz > , September 5, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

    @Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,

    Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .

    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades

    Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative extracts:

    http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A lot of baloney," he said.

    [MORE]

    Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments!asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.

    The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy!set by Sulzberger!to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.

    When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.

    The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists!including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.

    From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, '60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both!particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.

    The Alarmist > , September 5, 2016 at 11:43 pm GMT

    @Darin If moon landings were fake, why hadn't USSR or China revealed it? This would discredit USA before the whole world and won the Cold War in one stroke.

    If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would be no need for the small Apollo fake.

    Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.

    " then whole Cold War was fake."

    Wow, now here's a conspiracy theory to sink one's teeth into. That would make a great Matrix/MI/Bourne sequel.

    Pat Casey > , September 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT

    @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true. Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.

    And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read! not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.

    By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.

    Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.

    I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.

    Wizard of Oz > , September 6, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT

    @Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.

    Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war (Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent, just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.

    Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however, before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.

    It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true. Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories right .

    Bill Jones > , September 6, 2016 at 1:04 am GMT

    @Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.

    Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about

    "a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker, instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
    The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or " class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt, as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings" -- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.

    But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests. Nice try.

    The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed 17% of the electricity production of the entire US.

    exiled off mainstreet > , September 6, 2016 at 1:14 am GMT

    @Miro23 The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for years.

    For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.

    Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just another Conspiracy Theory? The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland.

    exiled off mainstreet > , September 6, 2016 at 1:44 am GMT

    @Darin Yes, why?

    If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?

    In the thirties, there were three cases of false flag attacks created to justify a war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila

    In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would be the point? I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.

    Decius > , September 6, 2016 at 1:51 am GMT

    @Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.

    And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original reading is what he was writing.

    By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.

    Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers? I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about Machiavelli's circumstance.

    I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning. First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.

    Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.

    anonymous > , Disclaimer September 6, 2016 at 2:18 am GMT

    @exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.

    My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far different.

    Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate. Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity !

    While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.

    Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs."

    Since then, Lieberman has been the main force behind legislation such as:
    -1- The USA Patriot Act
    -2- Protect America Act
    -3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
    -4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
    -5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
    -6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.

    Rurik > , September 6, 2016 at 2:40 am GMT

    Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.

    His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.

    I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.

    From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.

    Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:

    "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

    that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.

    That at least, is how I've seen it

    As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.

    Thanks again sir.

    SolontoCroesus > , September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT

    @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.

    Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    Nonsense.

    Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.

    Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.

    Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church.

    If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.

    Machiavelli and Republicanism

    http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PB

    Redeeming the Prince

    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223

    For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism

    http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583

    (Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 )

    CanSpeccy > , Website September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT

    @biz


    you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
    Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible, then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.

    In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and countries needing to be in on it, etc. biz, you obviously missed it. Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.

    Pat Casey > , September 6, 2016 at 3:31 am GMT

    @Rurik Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.


    His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
    I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss' philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.

    From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions of probity.

    Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:

    "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

    that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.

    That at least, is how I've seen it...

    As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.

    Thanks again sir. Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind! I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.

    Astuteobservor II > , September 6, 2016 at 3:32 am GMT

    after snowden, every conspiracy theory got a 99% boost in credibility. he confirmed the big bad boogeymen watching and spying on us all. nothing else is impossible, nothing. every theory is now possible, everything.

    Decius > , September 6, 2016 at 3:55 am GMT

    @Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness. Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?

    I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you.

    Decius > , September 6, 2016 at 4:03 am GMT

    @SolontoCroesus

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.
    Nonsense. Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written, taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he "puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.

    Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered Greek philosophers.

    Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy and institutional church. If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.

    (Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet, as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382 ) First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with it because it is hard.

    Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one.

    pyrrhus > , September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

    The CIA's Project Mockingbird had all the network news anchors using the words "conspiracy theory" like the brainless parrots that they were. And Americans remain well brainwashed, although it's actually hard to get anything significant done without a "conspiracy."

    Pat Casey > , September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

    @Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.

    Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore him.

    I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.

    Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose. Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander!the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?

    But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves .how many former selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.

    Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.

    Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:

    "In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one else understands it adequately either"

    What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously I should touch this up and send it somewhere:

    It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies, something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.

    " Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself, is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis, his system coheres.

    That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul will blame the body for its actions."

    Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra, and I don't believe he ever came back from that!he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the guy.

    But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand: these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble than others.

    I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms.

    Pat Casey > , September 6, 2016 at 6:18 am GMT

    @Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss? Are you serious?

    I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately, have allowed others to select for you. Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed and put your defenses down . I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin.

    5371 > , September 6, 2016 at 6:20 am GMT

    @Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?

    Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?

    Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which Strauss taught him to see through. When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you had not thought of before.

    dismasdolben > , September 6, 2016 at 6:23 am GMT

    My favourite historical conspiracy is the so-called "Gunpowder Plot," which is still, despite all of the evidence that has been discovered in more modern times, represented in history books, as being exclusively the work of disgruntled Catholic noblemen and their Jesuit confessors. It was actually a government projection of the Cecil ministry, completely riddled with moles who nurtured it along, right up until the point when it could be revealed to the public for maximum political effect, and to the King, so that he would become more terrorified, and, thus, more dependent upon the Cecils and their "constitutionalist" Puritan proteges. The "evidence" has, indeed, always been in plain sight, and it has been dealt with in numerous books, such as The Gunpowder Plot, Faith and Treason , by Antonia Fraser, and another book, entitled "God's Secret Agents,' but, still, to this day, the myth of conspiring priests is still propagated in atavistic anti-Catholic British history.

    Wizard of Oz > , September 6, 2016 at 7:42 am GMT

    @Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.

    For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire). I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?

    Old fogey > , September 6, 2016 at 8:28 am GMT

    @Laurel The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation. This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup without being labeled a truther. Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist.

    Moi > , September 6, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT

    @Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.

    Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.

    American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".

    In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine by Europe's unwanted Jews.

    Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians to decide who's lying.

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/09/28/holocaust-the-word-rouhani-never-uttered/ If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead, gas chambers, etc.).

    I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers in Auschwitz .

    [Sep 21, 2017] Hysteria in America -- Congress Filled With Totalitarians Who Oppose

    Notable quotes:
    "... Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts, leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse. ..."
    "... "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation" ..."
    "... Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill? ..."
    "... As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just solely be on Russia? ..."
    "... Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this? ..."
    "... 'Investigate Russia' ..."
    "... Reprinted with permission from RT . ..."
    Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    'Free Market of Ideas' by RT

    There are members of Congress who don't want anyone on TV saying America's foreign policy is a disaster and it costs a fortune, Daniel McAdams, executive director, Ron Paul Institute, told RT.

    The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2018, which passed the US Senate earlier this week, carries some added provisions that have little in common with the military.

    Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts, leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse.

    The plan is buried inside a tiny amendment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The part about Russia is summarized in just a few lines, between details on funding of the US military.

    Amendment No 1096 , which aims to "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation" .

    RT: Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill?

    Daniel McAdams: There is an obsession on Capitol Hill and within the mainstream media with RT because RT is effective and RT is watched. But also, and this is very important because RT carries perspectives that are not available in the mainstream media. Commentators on RT that I know would say the same thing that they say on RT if they were invited by any of the mainstream media, but they won't. The matter of fact is that John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the people who were behind this amendment, the Atlantic Council and the others are trying to silence RT. They are the totalitarians, they are the enemies of free speech; they're the enemies of the First Amendment; they don't want anyone coming on television saying that America's foreign policy is a disaster; it is broken; it is making us more vulnerable to attack, and it's costing a fortune. It cannot stand competition in the area of ideas.

    RT: As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just solely be on Russia?

    DM: The attention should be on none of these stations. It should be viewer beware. If you're watching RT and you know that it is funded, or its funding comes from the Russian government, you take that into consideration just as any intelligent person would do. When I watch France 24, when I watch the BBC, I know that that takes the perspectives of the British government into consideration, because it is funded by that.

    This is a free market of ideas; this is what this is all about. But the people on Capitol Hill are again totalitarians – they don't want a free market in ideas. They want to control the debate. They don't want Americans to wake up and see that the foreign policy that they are pushing is resulting in a charred Earth and a disaster that is coming home to roost.

    RT: Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this?

    DM: This is how it's done, absolutely. I have read a million defense spending bills in my 15 years on the Hill. This is called planting a seed – you plant this kernel, and it starts to grow. If someone objects, later on, you can say – this is already passed in the defense bill; you've already voted on this; this is already part of the law; this is just suggesting, clarifying, or going further. This is how they do things: you bury it in a huge bill like this; you plant a seed and you watch it grow.

    I don't know the exact language in the bill; I am sure Russia is not only the flavor of the month, it is the flavor of the year. There is the 'Investigate Russia' committee , where a bunch of Hollywood liberals got together with a bunch of neocons and are finding reds under our beds. There is a hysteria going on in America. I still would like to believe that the average American thinks it's absolutely nuts; I hope it stays that way. Hopefully, this will blow over at some point, and not blow up .

    Hollywood was once on the receiving end of McCarthyism in the 50s, and now it looks like they want to dish out McCarthyism on everyone else.

    Reprinted with permission from RT .


    Related

    [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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    justamug -> Skytree 16 Nov 2016 18:17

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

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

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

    ianfraser3 16 Nov 2016 17:54

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


    Filipio -> YouDidntBuildThat 16 Nov 2016 17:42

    Whoa there, slow down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    RichardErskine -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 15:38

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

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

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

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

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

    LionelKent -> greven 16 Nov 2016 14:59

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

    RandomLibertarian -> JVRTRL 16 Nov 2016 09:19

    Not bad points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Todd Smekens 16 Nov 2016 08:40

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

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

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

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

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

    zavaell -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 06:28

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

    aLERNO 16 Nov 2016 04:52

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

    accipiter15 16 Nov 2016 02:34

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

    JVRTRL -> Keypointist 16 Nov 2016 02:15

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

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

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

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

    JVRTRL daltonknox67 16 Nov 2016 02:00

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

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

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

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

    JVRTRL -> RandomLibertarian 16 Nov 2016 01:44

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

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

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

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

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

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

    daltonknox67 15 Nov 2016 21:46

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

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

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

    Arma Geddon 15 Nov 2016 21:11

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

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

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

    AlfredHerring GimmeHendrix 15 Nov 2016 20:23

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

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

    TanTan -> crystaltips2 15 Nov 2016 20:10

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

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

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

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

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

    YouDidntBuildThat -> Filipio 15 Nov 2016 20:06

    Filipo

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

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

    Keypointist 15 Nov 2016 20:04

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

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

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that. ..."
    "... At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media. ..."
    "... The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists." ..."
    "... Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate. ..."
    "... For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia. ..."
    "... The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    "... The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build. ..."
    "... THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight). ..."
    "... The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record? ..."
    "... To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck. ..."
    Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia September 15, 2017

    Exclusive: The New York Times' descent into yellow journalism over Russia recalls the sensationalism of Hearst and Pulitzer leading to the Spanish-American War, but the risks to humanity are much greater now, writes Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the "Two Minutes Hate" as envisioned in George Orwell's 1984, except applied to America's new/old enemy Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and evil.

    In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew Higgins wrote – referring to a fictitious war-game "enemy" – "The country does not exist, so it has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a distillation of the Kremlin's darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined military might of Russia and its ally Belarus."

    This snarky front-page story in Thursday's print editions also played into the Times' larger narrative about Russia as a disseminator of "fake news." You see the Russkies are even inventing "fictional" enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah -- The article was entitled, "Russia's War Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm."

    Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. For instance, U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia, Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia and Iran.

    In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted "Ocean Venture" with that war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called "Amber and the Amberdines," obvious stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with "Orange" used to represent Cuba.

    In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade some weak country -- (As it turned out, Ocean Venture '81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)

    Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there's one standard for "us" and another for Russia and other countries that "we" don't like.

    Yellow Journalism

    But the Times' behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister than biased reporting. The "newspaper of record" has slid into yellow journalism, the practice of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer's New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say marked the beginning of America's global empire.

    Except in today's instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that.

    At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media.

    Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police, Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening violence. But compromise wasn't good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.

    Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to "glue" or "midwife this thing"; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman was overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the "biggest prize" and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

    The Putsch

    So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of seeking peace , a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media blamed Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally in Kiev.

    Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise -- guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland -- to relinquish some of his powers and move up an election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.

    At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb. 22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the coup regime "legitimate."

    However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych's electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times' narrative, there was no "Russian invasion" of Crimea because Russian troops were already there as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That's why you've never seen photos of Russian troops crashing across Ukraine's borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.

    The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls "annexation."

    The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists."

    But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left's revulsion over Donald Trump's election.

    Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.

    The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the "resistance" to Trump's presidency and embraced the neocon "regime change" goal for Putin's Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this "strategy" entails.

    For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia.

    The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism.

    The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    jo6pac , September 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    Amerikas way of bring the big D to your nation. Death

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/unknown-snipers-and-western-backed-regime-change/27904

    Thanks RP for reading the times so I don't have to not that would.

    Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    Thanks for the link, I knew about the use of snipers in Venezuela '02, did not realize there were so many more.

    BayouCoyote , September 18, 2017 at 11:13 am

    Kinda reminds me of what our only "Ally in the ME" did to our Marines in Iraq.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIiGfUjZnbU

    JWalters , September 16, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    Bingo -- In a surely related story, the mainstream press is equally relentless in AVOIDING telling Americans the facts about Israel, and especially about its control over the American press.
    "Israel lobby is never a story (for media that is in bed with the lobby)"
    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israel-lobby-never/

    Virtually everything average Americans have been told about Israel has been, amazingly, an absolute lie. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for all.

    How has this gigantic package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public for so long? And how long can it continue? It turns out they did not foresee the internet, and the facts are leaking out everywhere. So it appears they're desperately coercing facebook and google to rig their rankings, trying to hide the facts. But one day soon there will be a 'snap' in the collective mind, and everybody will know that everybody knows.

    For readers who haven't seen it yet,
    "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror"
    http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

    Common Tater , September 17, 2017 at 3:48 am

    JWalters
    I can tell you are angry. I too was angry when I figured it out.
    Long before I figured it out, I was a soldier. Our unit was prepared for an exercise and we were all sleeping at the regiment compound, the buses would arrive at zero-dark thirty. I was reading a book about the ME(this was shortly after 9-11). A friend, came up and asked what I was reading. I told him I was reading about the Balfour paper and how that had a significant effect on the ME. He began explaining to me how the zionist movement had used the idea that no one lived on that land, to force the people from that land, out of that land.
    I quickly responded that Israel had defended that land against 5 Arab armies and managed to hold on to that land. I informed him he was mistaken.
    He agreed to disagree, and walked away.
    This happened way back in 2002 if only I could pick his mind now. How did he know about this, way back before the internet was in any shape to wake people up?
    There is hope still that guys who are young as i was, will say "Fuck You I defend this line and no further."
    Without their compliance, there can be no wars.

    Bernard Fisher , September 17, 2017 at 8:57 am

    CommonTater your story parallels mine -- I was in the military, went to Vietnam to 'defend our nation against communism', felt horror at the Zionist stories of how Palestinians rocketed them, was told by senior officer about what Zionism is really about and I, like you, disbelieved him. That was in 1974 -- -- Now, with all the troubles in the world I won't read the MSP but look towards the alternative news sources. They make more sense. But as I try to educate others on what I have learned I am as disappointed as my senior officer must have been back them. Articles such as this one reproduced by ICH are gems: I save and print them in a compendium detailing ongoing war crimes.

    Common Tater , September 17, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Bernard Fisher
    Thanks for your response.
    Good Idea to save and print these "gems" on consortiumnews.
    Hopefully they wake more Americans.
    Cheers

    michael fish , September 15, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    Thanks Mr. Parry,
    You are a voice in the hurricane of hatred and lies propagated by the richest people on the planet.
    Eventually some moron who believes this new York Times garbage will actually unleash the bomb and we will all be smoke.
    That has always been the result of such successful propaganda. And it is very successful. It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners .
    Michael Fish

    Yomamama , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 am

    Agreed. I wish this clear and comprehensive article could be stapled on every American voter's door (wanted to say forehead but violence is bad). Many would toss it in the trash. Many would not agree even with full comprehension because of their own horrid beliefs. But maybe a few would read it and have an epiphany. It's very hard work to find an avenue to change the minds of millions of people who've been inculcated by nationalist propaganda since birth. Since 4 years old seeing the wonderful National Anthem and jets fly over the stadium of their favorite sports team. Since required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

    I refused to stand for or recite the Pledge when I was seven or eight years old. I was sent to detention. My awesome mom though intervened and afterwards I could remain seated while most or all other kids stood up to do the ritual. I refuse to stand up and place hand-on-heart and remove cap during any sporting contests when the Anthem is played. I've been threatened with physical violence by many strangers around me.

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

    Thanks Mr. Parry, your voice is appreciated, your articles and logic are top-notch. Very valuable stuff, available for the curious, the skeptical. Well, until Google monopolizes search algorithms and calls this a Russian fake news site, perhaps or Congress the same

    Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    Excellent link, Yomamama.

    Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    My hat is off to you sir, I have not been to any sporting events since I woke up, but I imagine it would be very difficult to remain seated and hatted during the opening affirmation of nationalism. My waking up coincides with a drastic drop in sports viewing. I used to be an NFL fan, rooted for the Niners (started watching NFL in the late eighties), the last full season I followed was the 2013-14 season.

    It was the Ukraine coup that woke me up. It started when watching videos on youtube of guys stomping on riot cops, using a fire hose on them like a reverse water cannon. Then I realized these guys were the peaceful protesters being talked about on t.v. It was like a thread hanging in front of me, I began pulling and pulling until the veil in front of my eyes came apart. It was during this time I discovered consortiumnews.com.

    Thomas Dickinson , September 16, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    Mr Common Tater–just appreciating reading that someone else "woke up". That is the way it has felt to me. For me it was Oct 2002 and Bush's speech that was clearly heading us to war in Iraq. The "election" (appointment) of Bush in 2000 though was the first alarm clock that I started to hear. Most recent wake up is connected to Mr Parry's relentless (I hope) and necessary debunking of the myth of Russian nastiness and corresponding myth of US rectitude. Been watching The Untold History of the United States and have been dealing with the real bedrock truth that my government invented and invents enemies as a tactic in a game–ie. it's a bunch of boys thinking foreign relationship building is first and foremost a game. It has been hard to wash away all this greasy insidious smut from my life.

    Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    Thomas Dickinson

    It sucks to wake up, in a way. Once one gets past the denial, Tom Clancy novel type movies lose some of it's fun, although still entertaining. One secretly knows the audience in the cinema is just eating it all up and loving it. The American hero yells "yippie kayay mother f -- -r" as he defeats the post-Soviet Russian villain in Russia blowing up buildings, and destroying s–t as he saves the world for democracy. The Russian authorities amount to some guy in Soviet peaked hat, and long coat, begging for a bribe.

    Oliver Stone's series is really good, it turns history on his head and shakes all the pennies out his pockets. Another good reporter is John Pilger, he has a long list of docs he has done over several decades.

    Cheers

    Homer Jay , September 16, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    I have been watching that same series, about 3 episodes in. The most mind blowing part to think about is how the establishment consipired to block the nomination of the progressive Henry Wallace as a repeat VP for Roosevelt, leading instead to Harry Truman's nomination as VP, and then you know the rest of the story.

    Funny how history repeated itself with the nomination of Clinton instead of Sanders. Btw, after Sanders mistakenly jumped on the Russia bashing bandwagon he was one of the few who voted against the recent sanctions being imposed against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So yeah, I'd feel alot better with a Sanders president at this point.

    Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Apart from the obvious Exceptionalist and Zionazi imperative to destroy Russia and China in order that God's Kingdom of 'Full Spectrum Dominance' be established across His world by his various 'Chosen People', the USA always needs an enemy. Now, more than ever, as the country crumbles into disrepair and unprecedented inequality, poverty and elite arrogance, the proles must be led to blame their plight on some Evil foreign daemon.

    Only this time its no Saddam or Gaddaffi or Assad that can be easily bombed back to that Stone Age that all the non-Chosen must inhabit. This time the bullying thugs will get a, thermo-nuclear, bloody nose if they do not back off. Regretably, their egos refuse to withdraw, even in the interest of self-survival.

    Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:13 am

    " It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners."

    You are so right about that, I notice it every day on other forums on which I discuss current affairs with others: the US views are the accepted ones, and I get a lot of stick for stating different views. It is actually frightening to see how few people can think for themselves.

    mike k , September 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm

    The American people are being systematically lied to, and they don't have a clue that it is happening. There is no awake and intelligent public to prevent what is unfolding. The worst kind of criminals are in charge of our government, media, and military. The sleeping masses are making their way down the dark mountain to the hellish outcome that awaits them.

    "These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur
    of the mass
    Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
    For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it
    seem monstrous
    To admire the tragic beauty they build.
    It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
    Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
    Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
    The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
    Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and
    kissing.
    I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
    To change the future I should do foolishly. The beauty
    of modern
    Man is not in the persons but in the
    Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
    Dream-led masses down the dark mountain."

    Robinson Jeffers

    HopeLB , September 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm

    Great, Dark and Accurate poem -- Thank You -- Think I'll send it to Rachel Maddow, Wapo and the NYTimes.Might do them some good. Wouldn't that be lovely.

    Patrick Lucius , September 16, 2017 at 12:42 am

    Which poem is that? Not Shine, perishing Republic, is it?

    Thomas Dickinson , September 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    Rearmament by Robinson Jeffers. I liked that a lot, too, so looked it up. https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/rearmament/

    Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 11:35 am

    Fabulous reply. Back atcha:

    Dulce et Decorum Est
    BY WILFRED OWEN

    Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
    Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
    Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
    And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
    Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
    But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
    Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
    Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

    Gas -- GAS -- Quick, boys -- -- An ecstasy of fumbling
    Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
    But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
    And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
    Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
    As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

    In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
    He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

    If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
    Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
    And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
    His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
    Pro patria mori.

    ******************************

    And this, from Bob Dylan's "Jokerman" .

    Freedom just around the corner for you
    But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?

    ******************************

    I love life and am by nature a cockeyed optimist, but I find myself intermittently gloomy, my optimism overwhelmed by cynicism, when I see the abundance of moronic belligerence so passionately snarled out in the comments sections across the internet. Clearly, humans are cursed with an addiction to violence For my part, I am old and will die soon and have no children, plus I live in a quiet backwater far away from the nuclear blast zone. Humanity seems on course for a major "culling". Insane and sad.

    Mike Morrison , September 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm

    Over three years now the war in Donbass, Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoKj39HKls

    Dr. Ando Arike , September 15, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    I'd like to see more investigative reporting on the NYT's and other major media outlets' links to the CIA and other Deep State info-war bureaus. What the Times is doing now is reminiscent of the Michael Gordon-Judith Miller propaganda in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Operation Mockingbird, uncovered during the mid-70s Church Hearings, is an ongoing effort, it would seem. Revealing hard links to CIA information ops would be a great service to humanity.

    SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:22 pm

    After 'Michael Gordon-Judith Miller' I stopped reading the Times.

    Beard681 , September 18, 2017 at 11:52 am

    I am amazed at how many conspiracy types there are who want to see some sort of oligarch, capitalist, zionist or deep state cabal behind it all. (That is a REALLY optimistic view of the human propensity for violent conflict.) It is just a bunch of corporate shills pushing for war (hopefully cold) because war sells newspapers.

    Rich Rubenstein , September 15, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    Robert Parry has gotten this exactly right -- I'm a regular NYTimes subscriber /-have been for years -- and I have NEVER read anything about Russia that has not been written by professional Russia-haters like Higgins. Frankly, I don't get it. What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?

    mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm

    Have you looked into who owns the NYT?

    Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:32 am

    Why do you keep reading the NYT? Not only the Russia stories are heavily biased, but all their stories are. Most op-ed's about Israel/Palestine are written by zealous pro-Israel/pro-Zionists, against very few pro-Palestine people.

    Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:07 am

    The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build.

    THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight).

    Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Progs=propaganda stupid iPad.

    Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm

    Here in Aust-failure I read the papers for many years until they became TOO repulsive, particularly the Murdoch hate and fear-mongering rags. I also, and still do, masochistically listen to the Government ABC and SBS. In all those years I really cannot recall any articles or programs that reported on Russia or China in a positive manner, save when Yeltsin, a true hero to all our fakestream media, was in charge. That sort of uniformity of opinion, over generations, is almost admirable. And the necessity to ALWAYS follow the Imperial US ('Our great and powerful friend') line leads to some deficiencies in the quality of the personnel employed, as I one again reflected upon the other day when one hackette referred to (The Evil, of course)Kim Jong-un as 'President Un', several times.

    Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    "What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?"

    Several points:

    The Russian -- formerly Commie -- -- boogieman is a profit center for the military, their industrial suppliers, and the political class. That's the major factor. But also, the Zionist project requires a bulked up US military "tasked" with "full spectrum" military dominance -- the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the American jackboot on the world's throat forever -- to insure the eternal protection of Israel. Largely unseen in this Israeli/Zionist factor is the thousand-year-old blood feud between the Jews and Russians. They are ancient enemies since the founding of Czarist Russia. No amount of time or modernity can diminish the passion of that animus. (I suspect that the Zionist aim to "destroy" Russia will eventually backfire and lead instead to the destruction of Israel, but really, we shouldn't talk about that.)

    mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    The richest man in the world has the controlling interest in the NYT. Draw your own conclusions.

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/mexican-billionaire-carlos-slim-becomes-top-owner-of-new-york-times/

    Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:36 am

    Mexico, ground zero for the world fascist movement in the 20s and 30s (going by name Synarchy Internationale still does) throuout Ibero-America, centered in PAN. The Spanish-speaking World had to contend with Franco, and Salazar being in power so long in the respective "Mother Countries" of the Iberian Peninsula. This was the main trail for the ratlines to travel.

    I saw a dead coyote on the side of the road the other day. I know you know what that means to me, Mike. Omens are a lost art in these modern times, and I have no expertise in these matters, but it struck my attention hard. It was on the right side of the road: trouble for Trump coming from The Right? They are more potent than the ineffective Left, so this might be the way Trump is pulled down.

    Sfomarco , September 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    Carlos Slim (f/k/a Salim)

    Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm

    Yes, but who bankrolls Slim?

    Stiv , September 15, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    I wouldn't even need to read this to know what's going to be said. After the last article from Parry, which was very good and interesting .plowing new ground for him he's back to rehashing the same old shit. Not that it's necessarily wrong, only been said about a hundred times. Yawn

    D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:46 am

    After months of so many people pointing out how and why the "Russia stole the election" claim is false, it came roaring back (in liberal media) in recent days. It demands a response.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am

    No one is required to read anything on CN.

    Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    RP brought lots of new things into play in his article and showed how they mesh together and support one another "against Trump." I almost skipped it because so familiar with the topic, but RP brought new light to the subject, in my humble opinion.

    Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    I do not need to read or watch established "news" media to know what's going to be said. After the last b.s. story from the usual talking heads which was low brow and insulting to the intelligence of the audience, they are back at it again same ol'shit by the same talking heads. It is most definitely wrong, and it needs to be countered as much as possible not yawning.

    Gregory Herr , September 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm

    That's what struck me just how absurdly insulting will the Times get?

    And I think the point that trying to destabilize the Russian Federation may very well bring about a more militant hardline Russia is important to stress.

    anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am

    "Stiv" is a troll who makes this junk comment every time. Better to ignore him.

    Colin , September 18, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Were you planning to contribute anything useful to the discussion?

    SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    I always wonder what motivation the accusers believe you have when they call you a 'Putin stooge'. Why would you be one? Are you getting paid? Of course not, so this is just a judgment on your part. They could call you a fool, but accuse you of 'carrying water for the Kremlin' as I heard that execrable creature, Adam Schiff say to Tucker Carlson? That just makes no sense. Of course, none of it is rational.

    Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    They're insane. A crumbling Empire which was supposed to rule the world forever, 'Under God' through Full Spectrum Dominance, but which, in fact, is disintegrating under its own moral, intellectual and spiritual rottenness, is bound to produce hate-crazed zealots looking for foreign scape-goats. Add the rage of the Clintonbots whose propaganda had told then for months that the She-Devil would crush the carnival-huckster, and her vicious post-defeat campaign to drive for war with Russia (what a truly Evil creature she is)and you get this hysteria. Interestingly, 'hysteria' is the word used to describe Bibi Nutty-yahoo, the USA's de facto 'capo di tutti capi', in Sochi recently when Putin refused to follow orders.

    David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    I have another theory I'd like to get reviewed. These are corporate wars, and not aimed at the stability of nations. It is claimed that in 1991, at the fall of the Soviet Union, the oligarchs were created by the massive purchasing of the assets of the collapsing nation. The CIA was said to have put together a 'bond issue' worth some $480 Billion, and it was used to buy farms, factories, mineral rights and other formerly common holdings of the USSR. This 'bond issue' was never repaid to the US taxpayers, and the deeds are in the hands of various oligarchs. Not all of the oligarchs are tied to the CIA, as there were other wells of purchasers of the country, but the ties to Trump are actually ties to dirty CIA or other organized crime entities.

    The NY Times may be trying to capture certain assets for certain clients, and their editorial policy reflects this.

    I'd appreciate feedback on this.

    Thanks,
    David

    David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    There are many on-line videos on this theme. Searching 'Black Eagle Trust' is one form. Here is one link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhBZJEqoe0A

    stephen sivonda , September 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    David Grace . what have we here, a thinking man? I like your premise, and I haven't even watched the link you supplied. That being said, I'll sign off and investigate that link.

    D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:39 am

    Conspiracy theories upon conspiracy theories, ensuring that the public will never be able to root out the facts. People still argue about the Kennedy assassination 54 years later.

    Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:39 pm

    There is no rational 'argument' about what really happened to JFK.

    Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:12 pm

    Most conspiracy theories are fantasy fiction. If you have real evidence, based on verifiable facts, then it's not a theory any more. But most of the conspiracy theories popular in the USA just serve popular vanity. We never have to accept our mistakes, our crimes against humanity, etc. It's always THEIR fault.

    We Americans over all are like small children, always making excuses.

    mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Some of the material on the Black Eagle Trust are suspect. It gives figures for stolen Japanese war loot, for example, that are simply ludicrous. Figures of so many thousand tons of gold, for example, when the references should probably be to OUNCES of gold.

    RBHoughton , September 15, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    One sniper in Ukraine overthrew the democratic government. Previously one sniper in Dallas overthrew another democratic government. Are there any other examples?

    Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into supposing they have value beyond their labour?

    AshenLight , September 15, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    > Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into supposing they have value beyond their labour?

    It's about control -- those who know they are slaves will resist and fight, but those who mistakenly believe they are free will not (and if you give them even just a little comfort, they'll tenaciously defend their own enslavement). It turns out this "inverted totalitarianism" thing works a lot better than the old-fashioned kind.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:19 am

    Indeed. Gurdjieff told the tale of a farmer whose sheep were always wandering off due to his being unable to afford fences to keep them in. Then he had an idea, and called them all together. He told some of them they were eagles, and others lions etc. They were now so proud of their new identities that it never occurred to them anymore to escape from their master's small domain.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:23 am

    MLK is another example, as is Robert Kennedy.

    Anna , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    The American patriots are coming out: "CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092G That would be the end of the Lobby, mega oilmen and the FedReserve criminals

    mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm

    Yes, snipers on rooftops in Deraa, southern Syria, in 2011. These mysterious figures fired into crowds, deliberately targeting women and young children to inflame the crowd. At the same time the same snipers killed 7 police officers. Unarmed police had been sent in to deal with unrest without bloodshed. These police officers were armed only with batons.

    This is a standard page from the CIA playbook. The mysterious snipers in Maidan Square in 2014 are believed to have been Yugoslavian mercenaries hired by the CIA

    Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    The US has had oligarchy since 1789.

    BobH , September 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    We all have some kind of a bias but fortunately most of us here know the difference between bias and propaganda. Bias based on facts and our own values is often constructive but the N.Y. Times(like most msm) has descended into disseminating insidious propaganda. Unfortunately the search for truth requires a bit more research and time than most people are willing to invest. Thankfully, Robert Parry continues his quest but the dragons are not easy to slay. My own quest for truth once led to a philosophical essay. The cartoon at the bottom(SH Chambers) sums it up.
    https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/07/truth-elusive-concept.html

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:13 am

    I put a comment on your blog.

    BobH , September 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Mike, thanks so much, I'll look forward to reading it(so far, I don't see it Moderation?)

    Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    If we have a bias towards honesty, that helps. It keeps one's mind more open and provides a willingness to entertain various points of view. It's not naivete, however, but thoughtful consideration coupled with awareness and that protects one from being easily manipulated. But then, oppositely, there's a human tendency to want to be popular which inclines one towards groupthink. But why that so entrenches itself, making people impervious to truth, is a conundrum -- Maybe if the "why" can be answered, the "how" will become apparent -- how to reach individuals with the truth as so oft told, though hard on the ears, at CN.

    Jacob Leyva , September 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm

    So what do you think of the Russia-Facebook dealings? When will we get an article on that?

    Fuzzy , September 18, 2017 at 7:19 am

    Really? You think this is important?

    http://davidswanson.org/warlist/?link_id=3&can_id=ed31bf4cbc8f991980718b21b49ca26d&source=email-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928-2&email_referrer=email_232560&email_subject=how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928

    John , September 15, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    The Russian /Iranian vs the Ashkenazi has been going on for many, many years ..The USA is to a large extent controlled by the Ashkenazi / Zionist agenda which literally owns most of the MSM outlets .Agendas must be announced through propaganda to sway the sleeping public toward conformity .The only baffling question that remains is why do Americans allow Zionist to control such a large part of their great republic ?

    Art , September 16, 2017 at 1:43 am

    Robert, you come from intelligence. Why don't you look at Russia-gate from all possible angles?
    I suggest the following. Putin is an American spy. Russia-gate is created to make him a winner, a hero.
    And the specious confrontation is a good cover for Putin.
    This is in a nutshell.
    I can obviously say mu-uch more.

    D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:33 am

    Throughout 2017, we've seen a surge of efforts by both parties -- via the media that serve them -- to build support for a final nuclear war. The focus jumps from rattling war sabers at China (via Korea, at the moment) to rattling them at Russia, two nuclear-armed world powers. This has been working to bring Russia and China together, resolving their years of conflict in view of a potential world threat -- the US. Whatever their delusions, and regardless of their ideology, our political leaders are setting the stage for the deaths of millions of us, and the utter destruction of the US.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:59 am

    Our political leaders have betrayed us.

    Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    Thermo-nuclear war would cause human extinction, not just billions of casualties.

    Jim Glover , September 16, 2017 at 3:15 am

    It is the same now with North Korea and China. So what would happen if those nations were destabilized by Sanctions or worse Russia, China Iran and more would support Kim. How to make peace?

    Dennis Rodman has the guts to suggest call and talk with Kim or "Try it you might like it better than total mutual destruction". Think Love and Peace it can't hurt like all the war, hate and fear the media keeps pushing for advertising profits. War and Fear is the biggest racket on the planet. What can I do? Fighting a losing battle but it is fun tryin' to win.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:57 am

    We may be losing now, but who knows? It ain't over till it's over. Hang in there.

    GMC , September 16, 2017 at 3:20 am

    Great article- again . I used to live in the US, I used to live in Alaska, I used to live in Crimea, Ukraine but now I live in Crimea, Russia and Smolensk, Ru. I watched this all go down but it took awhile to see the entire picture. I seldom get any more emails from the states – even my brother doesn't get it. They think I'm now a " commie" , I guess. I see it as the last big gasp of hot, dangerous air from an Empire -- Exposed. Unfortunately, its not over yet and maybe we/you will have more bad times ahead. Crimea this summer is doing well with much work going on – from the badly needed new infrastructure to the new bridge, the people are much better off than in Ukraine. They made the right choice in returning to Mother Russia even though it was a no-brainer for them. The world is lucky to have free writers like, Parry, Roberts, Vltchek, Pepe', the Saker and the intelligent commenters are as important as the writers in spreading the Pravda. Spacibo Mr. Parry

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:54 am

    Thanks for sharing with us GMC. And good luck to you.

    ranney , September 16, 2017 at 4:22 am

    YES -- -- -- -- -- Yes to all that you wrote Robert -- Thank you again for writing clearly and saying what obviously needs to be said, but no one else will. We've been down this road before -i.e. the media pulling us into wars of Empire – first the Spanish- American one, then a bunch of others working up to Viet Nam, and then Iraq. Each one gets worse and now we're reaching for a nuclear one. Keep writing; your voice gives some of us hope that just maybe others will join in and stop the media from their constant "messages of hate" and the urging of the public to a suicidal conflagration.

    Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am

    The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record?

    Come to think of it, the 'fake news' theme is brilliant considering that now we have no bench mark for what the truth is, and by not having that bench mark for the truth we all go our separate ways believing what we believe, because certainly my news source is the only truthful one, and your news source is beyond questionable of how the news should be reported.

    People read headlines, but hardly do they ever read the article. Many hear news sound bites, but never do they do the research required, in order to verify the stories accuracy. Hear say works even more to rain in the clouds of mass deception. Then there are those who sort of buy whatever it is the established news outlets are selling based on their belief that it doesn't much matter anyway, because 'the establishment' lies to us all the time as a rule, so what's the big deal to keep up on the news, because it's all obviously one big lie isn't it? So not only do we have irresponsible news journalist, we also have a very large number of a monopolized unqualified news gatherers who must accept what the various news agencies report, regardless of what the truth may be. It's better the Establishment keep it this way, because then the Establishment has better control over the 'mob grabbing the pitchforks and sickles' and crying out justice for somebody's head. It's kind of like job security for the Establishment, but in their case it's more like a 'keeping your elitist head' security, if you know what I mean.

    To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:29 am

    The truth has never been that easy to find Joe. Actually all the beyond obvious propaganda on the MSM might wake some people up to do the searching necessary to get closer to what is really happening in their world. Maybe the liars have finally overplayed their hand? Or are we the people really that dumb? (I am scared to hear the answer to that one -- )

    Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    I could be a wise guy, and say to you 'or so you say' in reply to your kind comment, but then that would make me a troll.

    All I'm saying mike is that in this era of 'fake news' we are all running about on different levels, and never shall the two of us meet. That is unless you and I get our news from the same source, but what are the odds of all of us getting the same news? It's impossible, and I'm not quite that sure that that would be what we want either. Still without an objective, and honest large media to set the correct narrative we end up in this place, where you might find yourself doing a spread sheet study to come to some conclusion of what is true, and what isn't.

    Case in point, read about Russia-Gate here on consortiumnews, and then go listen to Rachel Maddow report on the same thing. Two different sets of stories. Just try and reconcile what you read on sites like this one concerning Ukraine, then go watch MSNBC or CNN. Never a match. So you mike read consortiumnews, and your in laws read the NYT and watch CNN, and there you go, a controversy arises between you and the in laws and with that life goes on, but where is the correct news to be found to settle the score?

    Once upon a time the established news agencies such as CNN, and the NYT, were the hallmark of the news, and sites such as this one were the ones on the edge, now I'm convinced this conviction has reversed itself.

    Thanks mike for the reply. Joe

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:07 am

    Wouldn't it be hilarious mike, if the dumbed down people attacked the Bastille under false pretense? Especially if the lie had been concocted by the blinded by their own hubris sitting powers to be. Talk about poetic justice, and well placed irony. Priceless --

    Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    Joe, Apparently people take the easy way out. And that's just it -- "the way out." Extinction -- Maybe they haven't learned there's something worth learning about and living for. I'm gonna concentrate on that. Open eyes that they might see

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:08 am

    You are right Virginia, it is probably 'a way out', and God bless them for it. My late Mother was like that, but I'll tell you why. When my Mother was growing up in a family of eleven children, her father would rent out their street level basement to the voting polls. A block away my uncle who was quite older than my Mother owned a corner saloon. Now on Election Day my Mother said how the men in suits would pull up in their big expensive cars, and they would descend upon my uncles corner bar. Soon after one by one drunks would come out of the tavern wearing Republican buttons then they would go into grandpap's basement voting booth, and vote. Not long after my Mom said, the same drunks would come pouring out of my uncles tavern and this time they were wearing Democratic buttons, and they would go vote once or as many times as it would take to thank the big guys in the suits for the free drinks. My Mom said this went on all day. She said a lot dead people voted whether they knew it or not, and that's the truth. She would follow up by saying, 'yeah a lot of politicians won on the drunk vote'.

    So Virginia some can't take the decept and lying, and with that they give up. I myself don't feel this way, but then there are the times I can't help but think of how my dear sweet Mother probably did have it right for the sake of living your life in the most upright and honest way. Sadly, there is no virtue in politics, or so it seems.

    Oh yeah, that uncle who owned the corner saloon, he did go into politics holding nominee appointed positions, until he got wise and got a honest job, as he would jokingly say.

    For the record my Mother did vote, but she was the lady standing in line who looked reluctant and pissed off to be there, but never the less my Mum was a voter. Oh, the candidate my Mother loved the most was JFK. John F Kennedy's was the only presidential picture my Mother ever hung in our humble home.

    My message here, was only meant to give some cover, and an explanation for those who shy away from politics, and not an excuse to stay uninvolved. For even my non political Mum did at least in the end break down, and do the right thing. We should all at least try, and keep up on the events of our time, and vote with the best intentions we can muster up.

    Okay, I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but you are always worth taking time for me to give a reasonable answer to. I also hope I'm entertaining with these stories I seem to tell from time to time. Take care Virginia. Joe

    Tannenhouser , September 17, 2017 at 7:28 pm

    Humans are approximately 90% water, give or take depending on evaporation (Age). Water always takes the path of least resistance. Oh I wish and hope for the day when most realize they are much more than 'just' water:)

    Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:47 pm

    The fakestream media lies incessantly, and has for generations. Chomsky and Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' outlines the propaganda role of the 'mass media', and is twenty-five years old, in which period things have gotten MUCH worse (just look at the fate of the UK 'Guardian' for an example). Yet the fakestream presstitutes STILL have the unmitigated gall to call others 'fake' and demand that we believe their unbelievable narratives. That's real chutzpah.

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:26 am

    You know Mulga you are correct, many generations have listened to many, many, lies upon their way to the voting booths. It goes without saying, how the aristocrats when they find it necessary, as they often do find it necessary, they lie to their flock for a whole host of reasons. Why we could pick anytime in history, and find out where lies have paved the way to a leaders greater conquest, or a leaders said greater conquest if not met with defeat, but never the less the public was used to propel some leaders wishes onward and upward whether for the good or the bad.

    But here we are Mulga, you and the rest of us here, straddling on the fence over what might be right to what possibly could be wrong. Without a responsible press you and us Mulga need to learn from each other. Like when comment posters leave links, that's always been something good for me to follow through on.

    We live in a unique time, but a time not that unique, as much as it is our time. Our great, great, grandparents were straddling the same fence, and I'm guessing they too relied on each other to navigate there way through the twisting maze of politics, and basically what they all wanted, was a little peace on earth. So Mulga I also guess that you and we the people are just carrying on a tradition that us common folk have been assigned too continue.

    Like reading your comments Mulga, good to see you here. Joe

    Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Fake news has always been common. Critical thinking has never been popular because Occam's Razor might slice your favorite story to shreds. Personally, I give full credence to few things in life, but suspect many more, to some degree. I trust my own experiences more than what I read in the media and try to reject conventional wisdom as much as possible.

    Herman , September 16, 2017 at 9:39 am

    Observing Putin's behavior, you have to be impressed with his continue willingness to extend the olive branch and to seek a reasonable settlement of differences. His language always leaves open the possibility of détente with the understanding that Russia is not going to lay down to be run over. On the contrary, the language of Obama and Trump, and their representatives is consistently take it or leave and engaging in school yard insults of Russia, Putin, Lavrov and others. We have consistently played the bully in the school yard encouraging others to join in the bullying. We talk about the corrosive discourse at home, but observe the discourse in foreign affairs. Trump and his associates are guilty, but slick talking Obama and his subordinates was often worse. .As has so often been said, we have only two arrows in our foreign affairs quiver, war and sanctions. We lack the imagination and will to actually engage in civil discussions with those on our enemies' list.

    Parry is of course correct in his opinion of the New York Times but it doesn't stop there, only that the New York Times undeservedly is the "newspaper of record." His citing of Orwell is on the mark. Just turn your TV on for the news and see for yourself.

    Dave P. , September 16, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    Very well said, Herman. Very true.

    Patricia Victour , September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am

    I don't subscribe to the NYT for this reason, and it is galling to me that our local rag, "The Santa Fe New Mexican," while featuring excellent local coverage for the most part, gets all it's "national" news from the likes of the NYT, WaPo, and AP. These stories, much of it "fake news" in my opinion, are offered as gospel by the "New Mexican", with no journalistic effort to print opposing views. People I know seem so proud of themselves that they subscribe to "The Times," and I don't even dare try to point out to them that they are being duped and propagandized into believing the most outrageous (and dangerous) crap.

    To add another dimension, these sources are so jealous of their position as the ultimate word on what Americans are to believe, and also so worried about their waning influence, that now RT and Sputnik, both Russia-sponsored news outlets, may be forced to register as "foreign agents" in the U.S. I am not familiar with Sputnik, but I have been watching RT on TV for several years and find it to be an excellent source of national and foreign news. Stories I see first on RT are usually confirmed soon after by other reliable sources, such as this excellent site – Consortiumnews. At no point did I feel I was being coerced by Russia during the 2016 election – I needed no confirmation that both Trump and Clinton were probably the worst candidates ever to run for President.

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:31 am

    You know what I find interesting is how a reporter such as Robert Parry will pinpoint his details to a critique of say the NYT, but when or if a NYTer is to write a likewise article of the Alternative Internet Press the NYTer will just simply critique their internet rival as a 'conspiracy theorist' or as now as in 2017 they refer to them as 'fake news artist'. I mean no rebuttal back referencing certain details such as what Parry mentioned, but just rhetorical words written over tabloid written headlines finalized under the heading of 'fake news'. This must be being taught in journalism school these days, because it's popular in the MSM.

    Just like you have never heard or read from the MSM a detailed answered rebuttal to the pointed questions of say the '911 Truthers' or a 'JFK Assassination Researcher' a valid bona fide answer. No, but you do hear the masters and mistresses of the corporate media world call writers such as Parry, Roberts, and St Clair, 'fake newscasters', 'Putin Puppets', and or a whole host of other nasty names, as they feel fit to write, but never a honest too goodness rebuttal. Then they talk about Trump not sounding or acting presidential hmm the nerve of these wordsmiths.

    BTW, I don't care much for Trump, and I even care less for our MSM. Just wanted to get that straight.

    Nice comment Patricia. Joe

    hatedbyu , September 16, 2017 at 10:57 am

    let's not forget about the nytimes grossly negligent reporting on syria and libya. judith miller? russian doping scandal. lying about the holdomor . man i could do this all day ..

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 10:12 am

    You mean the on air hours of punditry explaining away their professions mistakes, or the honest rebuttal? It's at those particular times and occurrences of ignored self reflection our honorable (not) MSM falls back on Orwell's 1984. Like it never happened. The dog didn't eat no home work, because there never was a dog, nor was there any homework .stupid us. Life goes on uninterrupted and non commercial time can be filled with an update on Bill Cosby's past alleged sexual predator attacks, and this is our professional news casting doing its best to entertain us, not inform us god forbid, but entertain us the ignorant masses of their workless society.

    One day hatedbyu the ignorant masses may just show the corporate infotainment duchess and dudes that they 'the people' ain't so ignorant, and things must change. Well at least that's the dream, but it's still a work in progress, and then there's the historical seesaw.

    I think it's the power of empire to expand, just like a balloon, until it reaches it's bursting point. But just what that bursting point is, is without a doubt the most disputable of arguments to be made. I am coming to the belief we are, as always, continually getting to that point, and we may of course be very close to igniting that spark in the not so far off future. I would prefer the spark to be completely financial, and dealt with accordingly, but I'm a dreamer purest and a conspiracy theorist, so that means when the crap starts going down, I'll be the old man on the hill lighting up a big fat doobie cue soundtrack 'Fool On the Hill'.

    Sorry just had to get carried away, but it's Sunday morning hatedbyu and I'm home alone and nobody's trying to break in .. Good comment hatedbyu. Joe

    Stephen J. , September 16, 2017 at 11:27 am

    A Compilation Not seen in Corporate Media: See Link Below:
    -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
    US Wars and Hostile Actions: A List
    By David Swanson

    http://davidswanson.org/warlist/?link_id=3&can_id=ed31bf4cbc8f991980718b21b49ca26d&source=email-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928-2&email_referrer=email_232560&email_subject=how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928

    Bob Van Noy , September 16, 2017 at 9:42 pm

    Stephen J. Thank you for introducing me to David Swanson. Great link.

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Im with you on that Bob, Stephen J providing the Swanson link should be a must read, to keep things fair and balanced. I also do wonder if Swanson's message isn't getting out there, and we all don't already know it? I'm a glass half full kind of guy, but what do we really know about each other, other than what the corporate media instills on us? I wish cable news would air a program made up of Swanson, Pilger, and Parry, for that at least could put some well needed balance finality back, if it ever was there in the first place, back into the public narrative .but there go I.

    Good to see you Bob. Joe

    Hank , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

    The deep state sticks with what works: controlling the media keeps the masses ignorant and malleable. "Remember the Maine"
    Germans are bayoneting Belgium babies and "remember the Lusitania" , some evidence shows higher ups knew the Japanese fleet was 400 miles from Hawaii, recall "Tonkin Gulf" episode, Iran Contra , invasion of Granada, Panama, and of course 911 and war on terror, patriot act, weapons of mass destruction, and Russia hacking the election. The masses "believe" these to be true and react and respond accordingly.

    "
    "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

    –Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Thanks Hank. Same ole same ole, eh? When will we ever learn?

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

    "Trump might well go down in history of the President who screwed-up a historical opportunity to really change our entire planet for the better and who, instead, by his abject lack of courage and honor, his total lack of political and diplomatic education and by his groveling subservience to the "swamp" he had promised to drain ended up being as pathetically clueless as Obama was." (The Saker)

    My sentiments exactly.

    Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 11:49 am

    What a glaring lie this article is, its' author being either "useful idiot" played by Kremlin, or maybe not so much of an idiot. What are you talking about here in comments, those who applaud this article, this bunch of lies? You live in Ukraine, you know anything about that so-called "putch"? How dare you to insult the whole nation – Ukrainian nation? Shame on you, people. You don't know (author of the article including) anything about Russia, Ukraine and that bloody Putin, but you have problems with the US and its' politics. US are your business, Ukraine definitely not. Find some other examples of NYT and USA malfeasance, some you know something about. Stop insulting other nations.

    anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:53 am

    You are not from Ukraine, and you care not for Ukraine, or you would seek unity not dominance of East over West Ukraine. Tell us about your life in Ukraine, and show us the evidence of "that bloody Putin."

    Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.

    Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".

    In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

    The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"

    Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/insider/the-times-uses-forensic-mapping-to-verify-a-syrian-chemical-attack.html

    Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.

    Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".

    Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"

    Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First Draft" coalition.

    Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to "strengthen" their "storytelling".

    In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.

    Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.

    In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    Thanks Abe. Sounds like these guys all read 1984, and decided it was just the thing for 2017 Amerika.

    Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    "Our investigation debunks the claims"

    Browne keeps the April 2017 NYT video positioned at the top of his Twitter feed
    https://twitter.com/malachybrowne/status/857290743068721152

    Obviously Browne is proud of the "investigation" even though merely shared a "story" fed to him by Higgins' Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council .

    Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

    Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

    Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
    https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

    In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

    Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

    The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

    – US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

    – The NATO military alliance

    – Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

    – Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

    – Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

    Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

    Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

    Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

    However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

    Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

    Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

    The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

    "an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

    While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

    King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

    The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

    Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

    There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

    Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

    Dave P. , September 17, 2017 at 12:26 am

    Abe – Thanks for all the invaluable information you have been providing.

    jaycee , September 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    The meme of an aggressive assertive Russia, based on what happened in Crimea, is a deliberate lie expressed with the utmost contempt towards principled diplomacy. The average consumer of mainstream news is also being shamelessly and contemptuously manipulated.

    First, the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved, and had previously expressed their opinion through referenda. The events of 2014 were part of an obvious pattern of previously expressed opinion.

    Second, around the time of the so-called Orange Revolution, NATO analysts forecast what would probably happen should Ukraine embrace European "security architecture" (i.e. NATO), and concluded that Russia would take steps to protect their naval facilities in Crimea. Yet, in 2014, NATO officials would disingenuously express their utmost shock and surprise at the event.

    Third, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in Ukraine in 2005 through the NED-financed Orange Revolution, consistently described his intention to join Ukraine with European institutions, including its "security architecture" (NATO), although acknowledging that the Ukrainian citizenry would have to be manipulated into accepting such a controversial and adversarial position. He would downplay presumed Russian reaction to potential removal from Crimea despite the obviousness and predictability of a serious crisis (see Sept 23, 2008 "Conversation with Viktor Yushchenko" Council On Foreign Relations). Yushchenko polled at 5.45% when he lost the Presidency in 2010, running on a platform of European integration.

    Fourth, Russian officials at the highest level told their American counterparts in 2009 that any attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and a corresponding threat to the Crimean naval facilities, would result in moves similar to what would later happen in 2014. Yet the United States, after instigating and legitimizing the Ukraine coup, would react to the Crimean referendum as an aggressive act which represented an unexpected security crisis requiring a reluctant but firm response of militarizing the entire region, and portraying the Russian state to the public as a dangerous and aggressive rogue power.

    The deliberate omission of relevant contextual background by politicians, military officials, and the mainstream media demonstrates that none of these institutions can be trusted, and it is they who represent the greatest threat to international security. Putin has been relentlessly demonized, but it can be argued that his swift and essentially bloodless moves in Crimea in 2014 avoided what could have been a major international crisis on the level of the Berlin blockade in 1961. It appears, in hindsight, that such a crisis is exactly what the NATO alliance desired all along.

    Sam F , September 17, 2017 at 9:58 am

    Well said.

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    Nicely put jaycee. What you wrote took me back to a time of some eight months before Maiden Square, when my niece decided to live in Kiev. A bit of a ways away from Pittsburgh, so I started researching Ukraine. I also discovered RT & Moonofalabama, and sites like that.

    What you wrote jaycee, in my humble opinion should be said in our MSM news. If for no other reason but to give an alternative fair and balance to say the likes of Rachel Maddow, or Joy Ann Reed. The way the MSM picks and chooses, and skims across important events in Ukraine, like Odessa, are criminal if ever the Press is to be judged for crimes of war. To the crys of a destroyed empire's vanquished population would then your small essay be heard jaycee, and yet that's the world we live in, but at least you said it.

    Thanks jaycee (that's the first time I wrote your name and the j didn't go capital what does that mean? Who cares.)
    Joe

    rosemerry , September 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    Of course the NYT liars would not bother to watch Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres. Putin, but during them he explained at length about his cooperation during the years after Ukraine elected a pro-Western president, managing to carry out mutual agreements and policies, but after the new pro- Russian president was elected, the USA did not accept him and overthrew him, which preceded the antics of Nuland et al in 2014 and the rest which followed.

    MaDarby , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    It appears to me that the elites decided long ago that the best solution to overpopulation is just to let climate change take care of three or four billion people while the Saud family and the Cargill family live on in their sheltered paradises with every convenience AI can provide.

    It is clear these mega-rich families DO NOT CARE about society, about mass human extension or even about nature itself. They are the pinnacle of human evolution. Psycho-pathological loss of empathy might have been a bad evolutionary experiment.

    This is derangement on a human specie scale, no leader no one in power has been willing to do anything but exploit every opportunity to make money and increase global domination, the great powers knew this day was coming when they made their decisions to hide it 50 years ago. The consequences are acceptable to the decision makers.

    A mass extension of organic life is taking place before our eyes, nothing can stop it, THEY DO NOT CARE.

    They sure as hell don't care if millions don't believe the Russia crap they just move ahead as the Imperial power, might makes right. In the end it is a religious project, the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil.

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    What you bring up MaDarby takes me towards the direction of wondering what all those other Departments, other than State & Defense, of the Presidential Cabinet are up too? If our news were done and somehow properly organized, in such away as to educate us peons, then whatever the time allowed would be to broadcast and print out what each Federal Agency is up to. Now I know a citizen can seek out this information, but why can't there be a suitable mass media representation to reach us clunkheads like me, not you?

    What should be exposed is the corporate ownership of the very agencies that were put in place to protect the 'Commons' has been corrupted to the point of no return. This dilemma will take a huge public referendum short of a mob revolution to change this atmosphere of complacency. The public will get blamed, but the real blame should be put on the massive leadership programs which were bolted down on to their citizens masses knowledge of said events, and there in lies the total crime of deception.

    MaDarby your concern for nature is where a smart person should put their number one priority concern, no arguing there, but just a lifting word of approval of how you put it. Joe

    Donald Patterson , September 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    Consortium has been a clear voice on the lunacy of the Russia-Gate scandal. But to paint Yanukovych former President of the Ukraine as an injured party considering his history in government with what appears to be large scale corruption is part of the story as well. A treason trial started in May. More info needed on what looks like a complicated story. This would be a good piece of investigative journalism as well.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 9:03 pm

    Can you imagine what a huge can of worms would be revealed if there was a thorough investigation on every congressperson and public official in Washington DC? It would make Yanukovych look like a saint. And in addition, let's investigate the 10,000 richest people in the US, including all their offshore fortunes gained by illegal means. Wouldn't it make sense to do that? Isn't there enough evidence of probable criminal activity to open these investigations? Where is our ethical sense when it comes to our own dirty laundry? I guess it's easier to speculate about other's crimes than look into our own, eh?

    Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    The focus I get isn't so much focused on Yanukovych, even Putin wasn't all that crazy about his style of leadership, but my focus on a viable democratically created government doesn't necessarily start with an armed public coup. Yes, leading up to the violence, peaceful protesters took to the streets, but as we both know this is always the case until the baton twirling thugs come to finally ramp up the protest to a marathon of violent clashes and whatever else gets heads busted, until we have a full fledged revolution on our hands pass out the cookies. I mean by by-passing the voting polls, even to somehow ad hoc a temporary government in some manner of government overthrow were done peacefully, well then maybe I could get on board with this new Ukrainian government, but even the NYT finds it impossible to cover up everything.

    And what about the people of Donbass? Shouldn't they have a say in this new government realignment? Ukraine has, and has always had a East meets West kind of problem. That area has been ruled over for centuries by each other, and one another, to a point of who's who and what's what is hard to figure out. Donbass, should in my regard be separate from the Now Kiev government. (Be kind with your critique of me for I am just an average American telling you what I see from here)

    It's like everything else, where we should let the people of the region sit down with each other and work it out, we instead blame it on Putin, or whoever else Putin appears to be, and there you have it MIC spending up the ying-yang, for the lack of a better portrayal, but still a portrayal of what ills our modern geopolitical society.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    "The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?" (the Saker)

    Please go to the entire article on today's Saker Blog.

    Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Sick edition consortiumnews, sick readers. Elites, Deep State, Evil Empire USA Dove Putin with olive branch Guys, why don't you watch, say for a week, Russian TV, if you have somebody around who can translate from Russian. If you want to hear real nazi racist alt-whatever crap, Russian TV is the place. But you'll enjoy it, most probably. Thankfully, you guys, are obviously, minority, with all your pseudo intellectual delusions, discussions and ideas. "Useful idiots" – that's what Lenin said about the likes of you.

    Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

    For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

    A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

    Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

    In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

    Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

    In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

    The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

    This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

    Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

    Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

    In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

    Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

    Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

    The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA

    Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

    Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

    In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

    Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

    Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

    Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers".

    "But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

    Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

    The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

    Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

    US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

    The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

    Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

    The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

    In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

    mike k , September 16, 2017 at 8:50 pm

    Thanks Abe. Your insights are invaluable.

    GMC , September 17, 2017 at 4:53 am

    I live in Russia and see those shows that you speak of. The Nazi rants are from the Ukraine folks invited on the show – you want to see Ukraine shows like the ones in RU. – well, you won't see any Russians invited to talk -- -- NONE --

    Gregory Herr , September 17, 2017 at 10:33 am

    Your posts are so blatantly contrived it's almost funny. Do you write for sitcoms as well?

    mrtmbrnmn , September 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Is this a great country, or wot???

    Stupid starts at the very top and there is no bottom to it .

    Dominic Pukallus , September 16, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    The Washington Post has its own ironically self-describing slogan. Perhaps that of the NYT these days should be, in the same vein, "The Sleep of Reason begets monsters". And who will soon then be able to whistle in the darkness full of these things?

    mike k , September 17, 2017 at 8:03 am

    When looking for monsters, the WaPo should start by looking at themselves.

    Walter DuBlanica , September 17, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    The chaos in Ukraine was engineered by Victoria Nuland at Hillary's request. Good that she is not president. The Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, same DNA, same religion Orthodoxy., Slavic, languages very close to each other, Cyrillic alphabet and a long common history .

    Russian_angel , September 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    Thank you for the truth about Russia, it hurts the Russians to read about themselves in the American newspapers a lie.

    Florin , September 18, 2017 at 2:15 am

    Gershman, Nuland, Pyland, Feltman . essentially ths four biggest US (quasi) diplomats, like Volodymyr Groysman, Petro Poroshenko and perhaps 'our guy' Yats – are Jewish.

    Add to this the role of Israeli 'ex' military, some hundreds, which means Mossad, and of Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine – and consider that Jews are less than 1% of the population.

    The point is if we were free to speak plainly, the Ukraine coup looks to be one in which American and Ukrainian Jews acted in concert to benefit Jewish power. There is more to be said on this, but this glimpse will suffice because, of course, one is not free to speak plainly even where plain speaking is, on the face of it, encouraged.

    Jamie , September 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    Where was fake Antifa when Obama armed Nazi's in the Ukraine?

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/12/u-s-house-admits-nazi-role-in-ukraine/

    Obama then put Joe Biden's sleazy son, Hunter, on the board of the largest gas company there:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/

    By ignoring the fascism of one political party, Antifa is actually pro-fascist. This fits in well with their Hitler-like disdain for freedom of press, speech and assembly. And their absolute love of violence, we also saw in the 1930s among Nazi groups

    [Sep 18, 2017] Trump won but he is completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies by The Saker

    Although he speaks about the USA being occupied, looks like Saker does not understand that that the US empire is actually a global neoliberal empire where multinationals and financial oligarchy have political control. And without a viable alternative it probably will not collapse, as any collapse presuppose the withdrawal of support. The necessary level of isolation is possible only if a an alternative is present
    Now like in befor the World War Ii there is struggle for "spheres of influence", in which the USA is gradually losing as both Germany and Japan restored their industrial potential and China is a new powerful player on the world scene, which now is allied with Russia with its formidable nuclear deterrent that now anti-missile defense can neutralize"
    Also the USA venture into Ukraine means the completion of revision of the results of WWII, which opened a new can of worms for the USA making Russia essentially a hostile power (which neocon admit and try to exploit via the current neo-McCarthism witch hunt)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. ..."
    "... In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. ..."
    "... And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. ..."
    "... Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. ..."
    "... This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. ..."
    "... Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia . ..."
    "... I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population. ..."
    "... just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! ..."
    "... when the cat is gone, the mice dance ..."
    "... The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ..."
    "... Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course. ..."
    "... No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war. ..."
    "... Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. ..."
    "... What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. ..."
    "... And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary. ..."
    "... The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways. ..."
    "... This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody. ..."
    "... This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?! ..."
    "... My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways! ..."
    "... my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). ..."
    "... The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice. ..."
    "... Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). ..."
    "... in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ..."
    "... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around. ..."
    Aug 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

    First, my writing on the wall

    In October of last year a wrote an analysis I entitled The USA are about to face the worst crisis of their history and how Putin's example might inspire Trump and I think that this is a good time to revisit it now. I began the analysis by looking at the calamities which would befall the United States if Hillary was elected. Since this did not happen (thank God!), we can safely ignore that part and look at my prediction of what would happen if Trump was elected. Here is what I wrote:

    Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid " crazies in the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities" (from actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned their bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an easy pushover his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose and they will fight to the very last one.

    What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if he is surrounded by Neocons and their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team? How is he going to vet them? His first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he will appoint some new version of the infamous Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has both principles and courage, the Neocons can always "Dallas" him and replace him with Pence. Et voilŕ !

    I went on to suggest that Trump's only option would be to follow Putin's example and do the the Neocons what Putin did to the oligarchs. Clearly that did not happen. In fact, one month after the election of Trump I wrote another analysis entitled " The Neocons and the "deep state" have neutered the Trump Presidency, it's over folks! ".

    Less than a month ago I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation . Trump accepted it. Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy . ( ) The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us all. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again. It's over, folks, the deep state has won.

    I then concluded that the consequences of this victory would catastrophic for the United States:

    In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.

    I think that what we are seeing today are the first signs of the impending collapse.

    The symptoms of the agony

    Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. While this makes for good headlines, this does not qualify as a "policy" of any kind (I discussed this issue at length during my recent interview with SouthFront ). And then there is Congress which has basically stripped Trump from his powers to conduct foreign policy . This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. Internally, the latest riots in Charlottesville now being blamed on Trump who, after being a Putin agent is now further demonized as some kind of Nazi (see Paul Craig Roberts' first and second warnings about this dynamic) Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia .

    I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population.

    The psychological preparation for the forthcoming coup: scaring them all to death Here are three very telling examples taken from Newsweek's front page:

    ... ... ...

    Ask yourself, what is the message here? Trump is a traitor, he works for Putin, Putin wants to destroy democracy in the United States and these two men together are the most dangerous men on the planet . This is a " plot against America ", no less! Not bad, right? "They" are clearly out there go get "us" and "we" are all in terrible danger: Kim Jong-un is about to declare nuclear war on the US, Xi and Putin are threatening the world with their armies, and "our" own President came to power courtesy of the "Russian KGB" and "Putin's hackers", he now works for the Russians, he is also clearly a Nazi, a White supremacist, a racist and, possibly, a " new Hitler " ( as is Putin , of course!).

    And then, there are those truly scary Mooslims and Aye-rabs who apparently want only two things in life: destroy "our way of life" and kill all the "infidels". This is why we need the TSA, 16 intelligence agencies and militarized police SWAT teams everywhere: in case the terrorists come to get us where we live.

    Dangerous international consequences

    This would all be rather funny if it was not also extremely dangerous. For one thing, the US is really poking at a dangerous foe when it constantly tries to scare Kim Jong-un and the DPRK leadership. No, not because of the North Korean nukes (which are probably not real nuclear capable ICBMs but a not necessarily compatible combination of nuclear 'devices' and intermediate range ballistic missiles) but because of the huge and hard to destroy conventional North Korean military. The real threat are not missiles, but a deadly combination of conventional artillery and special forces which present very little danger to the US or the US military, but which present a huge threat for the population of Seoul and the northern section of South Korea. Nukes, in whatever form, are really only an added problem, a toxic "icing" on an already very dangerous 'conventional cake'.

    [Sidebar - a real life nightmare : Now, if you *really* want to terrify yourself and stay awake all night then consider the following. While I personally believe that Kim Jong-un is not insane and that the main objective of the North Korean leadership is to avoid a war at all costs, what if I am wrong? What if those who say that the North Korean leaders are totally insane are right? Or, which I think is much more likely, what if Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leaders came to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose, that the Americans are going to kill them all, along with their families and friends? What could they, in theory, do if truly desperate? Well, let me tell you: forget about Guam; think Tokyo! Indeed, while the DPRK could devastate Seoul with old fashioned artillery systems, DPRK missiles are probably capable of striking Tokyo or the Keihanshin region encompassing Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe including the key industries of the Hanshin Industrial Region . The Greater Tokyo area (Kanto region) and the Keihanshin region are very densely populated (37 and 20 million people respectively) and contain an immense number of industries, many of which would produce an ecological disaster of immense proportions if hit by missiles. Not only that, but a strike on the key economic and financial nodes of Japan would probably result in a 9-11 kind of international economic collapse. So if the North Koreans wanted to really, really hurt the Americans what they could do is strike Seoul, and key cities in Japan resulting in a huge political crisis for the entire planet. During the Cold War we used to study the consequences of a Soviet strike against Japan and the conclusion was always the same: Japan cannot afford a war of any kind. The Japanese landmass is too small, too densely populated, to rich in lucrative targets and a war lay waste to the entire country. This is still true today, only more so. And just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! The South Koreans have already made their position unambiguously clear , by the way. As for the Japanese, they are officially placing their hopes in missiles (as if technology could mitigate the consequences of insanity!). So yeah, the DPRK is plenty dangerous and pushing them into their last resort is totally irresponsible indeed, nukes or no nukes]

    What we are observing now is positive feedback loop in which each move by the Neocons results in a deeper and deeper destabilization of the entire system. Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous and can only result in an eventual catastrophe/collapse. In fact, the signs that the US is totally losing control are already all over the place, here are just a few headlines to illustrate this:

    Iran could quit nuclear deal in 'hours' if new U.S. sanctions imposed: Rouhani Israel: Netanyahu declares support for a Kurdish state Syrian forces take 3 more towns en route to Deir ez-Zor in first airborne operation Maduro calls for nationwide 'anti-imperialist' drills after Trump's threat of 'military option' Soldiers of the 201st (Russian) base in Tadjikistan have been put on high alert as part of a military exercise Confirmed: Turkey to end support for anti-government terrorists in Syria Russia Plans Huge Zapad 2017 Military Exercises With Belarus

    A French expression goes " when the cat is gone, the mice dance ", and this is exactly what is happening now: the US is both very weak and basically absent. As for the Armenians, they say " The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ". Well, the "mice" of the world are dancing and dreaming and simply ignoring the "cat". Every move the cat makes only makes things worse for him. The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.

    Dangerous domestic consequences

    First on my list would be race riots. In fact, they are already happening all over the United States, but they are rarely presented as such. And I am not talking about the "official" riots of Black Lives Matter, which are bad enough, I am talking about the many mini-riots which the official media is systematically trying to obfuscate. Those interested in this topic should read the book here ). The simple truth is that no regime can survive for too long when it proactively supports the exact opposite of what it officially is supposed to stand for. The result? I have yet to meet an adult American who would sincerely believe that he/she lives in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". Maybe infants still buy this stuff, but even teenagers know that this is a load of bull.

    Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course.

    Combine all this and you get a potentially extremely explosive situation. No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war.

    And how do the Neocons plan to deal with all this? By cracking down on free speech and dissent, of course! What else? Their only response – repression of course!

    YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter – they are all cracking down on "bad" speech which includes pretty much any topic a garden variety self-described 'liberal' frowns upon. GoDaddy and Google are even going after domain names. Oh sure, nobody gets thrown in jail for, say, defending the 2nd Amendment, but they get "demonetized" and their accounts simply closed. It's not the cops cracking down on free speech, it's "Corporate America", but the effect is the same. Apparently, the Neocons do not realize that censorship is not a viable strategy in the age of the Internet. Or maybe they do, and they are deliberately trying to trigger a backlash?

    Then there is the vilification campaign in the media: unless you are some kind of 'minority' you are assumed to be nefarious by birth and guilty of all the evils on the planet. And your leader is Trump, of course, or maybe even Putin himself, vide supra. Christian heterosexual White males better run for cover

    Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. That, of course, only further weaken the Neocons and the United States themselves and that further accelerates the positive feedback loop mentioned above which now threatens the entire international system.

    Us and Them

    What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. In my admittedly subjective opinion, the last competent (no, I did not say 'good', I said 'competent') US President was George Herbert Walker Bush who, unlike his successors, at least knew how to run an Empire. After that, it is all downhill, faster and faster. And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary.

    The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways.

    So the real question now is this: can the rest of the planet prevent a catastrophic collapse of the AngloZionist Empire?

    This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody.

    This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

    And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

    I honestly don't know. I hope so, but I am not sure. My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways!

    So what's next?

    Truly, I don't know. But my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). Seeing how weak and spineless Trump is, he might even be "convinced" to resign. I don't see them simply murdering him simply because he is no Kennedy either. After that, Pence comes to power and it will all be presented like a wonderful event, a group-hug of the elites followed by an immediate and merciless crackdown on any form of political opposition or dissent which will immediately be labeled as racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, terrorist, etc.

    The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice.

    Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). Unless the US decides to re-invade Grenada or give Nauru a much deserved thrashing, any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ( in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ).

    There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.

    This analysis was written for The Unz Review

    [Sep 18, 2017] Why Petraeus, Obama And Brennan Should Face 5,000 Years In Prison

    Notable quotes:
    "... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
    "... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
    "... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
    "... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
    "... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
    "... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
    "... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
    "... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
    "... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
    "... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
    "... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
    "... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
    "... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
    "... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
    "... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
    "... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
    "... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
    "... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
    "... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
    "... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
    "... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
    "... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
    "... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
    "... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
    "... Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q ..."
    "... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
    Aug 04, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    California CEO Allegedly Smuggled Rifle Scopes to Syria - Daily Beast, August 1 2017

    Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest, and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
    ...
    If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation, in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
    ---

    Under Trump, a Hollowed-Out Force in Syria Quickly Lost CIA Backing - NY Times * , August 2, 2017

    CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
    ...
    Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
    ...
    In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert program of arming and training rebels
    ...
    [ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small groups of rebels
    -...
    John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program ...

    When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an equally larger scale.

    * Note:

    The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA documents show that it was over $1 billion per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.

    Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM | Permalink

    nmb | Aug 3, 2017 5:31:09 AM | 1

    Easy: because they are war criminals.
    V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:16 AM | 4
    But, but, b; you're dealing with a rogue government of men; not laws. Should have been obvious in 2003, March 19th...
    Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:28 AM | 5
    In case there is any doubt, North Korea has already said arming "rebels" to over throw the government would face nuclear retaliation.
    Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:52:50 AM | 6
    India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2 million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
    Emily | Aug 3, 2017 5:54:48 AM | 7
    It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
    Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.

    Is treason in the USA a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.

    Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/274688/World/Region/,-Syrian-refugees-and-fighters-return-home-from-Le.aspx
    V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 6:25:03 AM | 9
    Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8

    Informative link; thanks.

    Peter AU 1 | Aug 3, 2017 6:30:12 AM | 10
    "a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."

    A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping is just too much of an attraction

    somebody | Aug 3, 2017 6:52:48 AM | 12
    add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people.
    Anonymous | Aug 3, 2017 6:54:31 AM | 13
    Mina @3. The title of the article is deceptive.

    "7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"

    The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution. Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.

    ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.

    On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the likes of McCain.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHBFkZZ1y40

    librul | Aug 3, 2017 8:20:55 AM | 14
    somebody @12,

    Thanks for the link, it is a keeper.

    "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."

    My own addition to the Brennan record:

    Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for 9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington, they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.

    somebody | Aug 3, 2017 8:36:06 AM | 15
    14 add this New York Times link: U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels
    The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities. ... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

    From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.

    ...

    The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.

    ...

    Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account.

    When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel.

    In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."

    michaelj72 | Aug 3, 2017 8:43:35 AM | 16

    "Many commit the same crime with a very different result. One bears a cross for his crime; another a crown." ― Juvenal, The Satires

    librul | Aug 3, 2017 9:09:59 AM | 17
    somebody @15

    one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA

    Greenbean950 | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:03 AM | 18
    NYT's article was a white wash. It was cover. NYT = CIA
    paul | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:16 AM | 19
    The art of limited hangout as practiced by the NYT
    nonsense factory | Aug 3, 2017 10:15:14 AM | 20
    Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
    In particular:
    A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.

    Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S. seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.

    This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed, jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.

    The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Leon-Panetta-supports-Hillary-Clinton-plan-to-arm-Syrian-rebels.html (Feb 2013)

    Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).

    Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet.

    Send the lot to Scheveningen Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.

    Jackrabbit | Aug 3, 2017 10:36:48 AM | 21
    But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
    karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 10:45:27 AM | 22
    Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well. Thanks b!
    james | Aug 3, 2017 12:07:05 PM | 23
    it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward, not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world, but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
    stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 12:46:57 PM | 26
    What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy.

    Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan.

    As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/

    RUKidding | Aug 3, 2017 12:56:29 PM | 27
    While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.

    That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.

    At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some of his damage.

    Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back).

    Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.

    stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 1:15:55 PM | 28
    Speaking of who DID get arrested, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/03/fbi-arrests-wannacry-hero-marcus-hutchins-las-vegas-reports/

    Gee, wouldn't we like to see the arrest warrant?

    NemesisCalling | Aug 3, 2017 1:16:29 PM | 29
    @27 beating a dead horse, but I agree.

    I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling the apocalypse.

    Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc. I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling. I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world USA?

    Mina | Aug 3, 2017 1:23:53 PM | 30
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/274706/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-and-Russia-broker-truce-between-Syrian-regim.aspx
    harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:14:24 PM | 31
    Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

    His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

    John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria.

    "We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare as I understand it," McCain said. https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/

    virgile | Aug 3, 2017 2:23:20 PM | 32
    They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
    harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:44:11 PM | 33
    The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government.

    Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written off as an Assad apologist or worse.

    Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange with then-ex Ambassador Ford: http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906

    Noirette | Aug 3, 2017 2:48:20 PM | 34
    Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar' of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex. Meyssan, as an ex.:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html

    In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade, a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.

    Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where 'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.

    The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance spun by the media, which works.

    OJS | Aug 3, 2017 2:49:46 PM | 35
    @virgile, 32

    "They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."

    I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states) - freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!

    My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and wealth, what religion does to a human?

    karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 3:26:11 PM | 36
    OJS @35--

    Have you read Reg Morrison's Spirit in the Gene ? Here's a link to one of his related essays with many more of relevance on his website, https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/

    ben | Aug 3, 2017 3:35:09 PM | 37
    b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.

    You can include ALL the POTUS's and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."

    john | Aug 3, 2017 4:16:52 PM | 38
    ben says:

    Duh, like never..Most here understand this, I'm sure right. like voyeurs, we like to watch , and watch , and watch .

    somebody | Aug 3, 2017 4:23:25 PM | 39
    35 Religion has nothing to do with it.

    How to spot a Sociopath

    6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way, is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.

    The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources for the disorder on the internet.

    fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 5:45:24 PM | 40
    NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. /s
    OJS | Aug 3, 2017 8:12:07 PM | 42
    @karlof1, 36

    " Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, ...."

    Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere. Thanks sharing you thought.

    falcemartello | Aug 3, 2017 9:03:06 PM | 43
    What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional. The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world ,debunked.

    Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.

    Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
    Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.

    runaway robot | Aug 3, 2017 9:07:30 PM | 44
    karlof1@36:
    Thanks for reminding me about Reg Morrison! I need to re-read that book, slowly.
    fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 9:20:33 PM | 45
    43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world,debunked.

    Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.

    Temporarily Sane | Aug 4, 2017 12:06:50 AM | 46
    @45 fast freddy
    This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him.

    Except they don't hate him. Quite the opposite in fact. Looking to Trump as some sort of savior figure is absolutely ridiculous.

    rm | Aug 4, 2017 12:17:56 AM | 47
    Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q

    Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.

    [Sep 17, 2017] Empire Idiots by Linh Dinh

    Highly recommended!
    There are probably two factors here: The first is the real anger of Arab population against aggression by the USA and European states (mainly GB and Frnace). That what produces radicalized Muslims who can commit terrorist attacks.
    The second factor is the desire of intelligence agencies to exploit those attacks for thier own purposes. For example, it is quite possible, that they are standing idle to the most stupid of them and disrupt others, more dangerous.
    Notable quotes:
    "... How many Muslims are needed to drive one suicide car? Five, of course. What's the best, most lethal vehicle for the purpose? The compact Audi A3, naturally. ..."
    "... From 9/11, Charlie Hebdo, Paris' Bataclan Concert Hall, Berlin's Christmas Market to Barcelona, etc., Muslim mass murderers seem expert at leaving behind their identity papers. ..."
    "... Classic examples of this type of "lost and found id" were Oswald's lost wallet and James Earl Ray's dropped bundle of documents (ML King) ..."
    "... Arab folks are brimming with anger that is now being met by the anger of the natives. ..."
    "... I think the author misses the role of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, who appear to be the main financiers of the work performed by the above American Israel Empire. ..."
    "... Perhaps the term Petrodollar Empire would be more accurate? As a bonus, it also complies better to the rules of political correctness. ..."
    "... I am always deeply skeptical of these false flag claims. We bomb and kill arabs daily, yet create magnificent conspiracy theories to explain how it is someone else blowing crap up in vengeance. ..."
    "... Why would Israel need to frame Muslim bombers when so many are so willing to do the job themselves and avenge their dead? Israel certainly pulls our strings to conduct the bombardment and they control American politics – why would they need to fabricate murders of random faceless Spaniards? How does that keep American taxpayers footing the bill for Zionism? ..."
    "... It's really pretty simple isn't it? Before we decided to throw in with England and help genocide the Palestinians we had few problems with arabs. Now we've expanded our mission to include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc and our blowback is serious. The arabs are doing what I'd do if a foreign power bombed my family. I could not care less what happens to Israelis or arabs. We need to either nuke the entire Arab world or leave it the hell alone – none of them are worth a single American life. ..."
    Sep 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

    How many Muslims are needed to drive one suicide car? Five, of course. What's the best, most lethal vehicle for the purpose? The compact Audi A3, naturally. What's the best time to stage such an attack? 1:15AM, grasshopper, when there are almost nobody on the Paseo Maritimo. Finally, what should you wear for such a momentous and self-defining occasion? Fake suicide vests, stupid, because they serve no purpose besides giving cops an excuse to perforate you immediately.

    ... .. ...

    Astonishingly moronic, the five Muslims in Cambrils made all the worst choices possible, but the rest of their "terrorist cell" weren't any smarter, it is said.

    Eight hours earlier, a van had killed 14 people and injured 130+ more in Barcelona, and the purported driver of that van, 22-year-old Younes Aboyaaqoub, had rented the vehicle with his own credit card. Very stupid. He also left his IDs in a second van, meant as a get-away car.

    From 9/11, Charlie Hebdo, Paris' Bataclan Concert Hall, Berlin's Christmas Market to Barcelona, etc., Muslim mass murderers seem expert at leaving behind their identity papers. Otherwise, the official narrative can't be broadcast immediately. Wait a week or a month for a proper investigation, and the public won't have any idea what you're talking about, fixated as they are on a Kardashian pumped up buttocks or Messi goal.

    Brabantian, Website September 9, 2017 at 9:03 am GMT

    List of Passport / ID documents found at terrorism attack scenes – at least 8, including those Linh Dinh mentions above

    (1) – 11 Sep 2001 passport found in NYC towers rubble tho aeroplane had 'turned to vapour'
    (2) – 7 Jul 2005 London bomboings – ID of '4th bomber' allegedly 'found by UK police'
    (3) – 7 Jan 2015 Charlie Hebdo, passport in car in front of Paris Jewish deli where Mossad meets
    (4) – 13 Nov 2015 Bataclan Paris passport flew from body 'after killer exploded his suicide vest'
    (5) – 14 Jul 2016 Nice France lorry attack 'passport found'
    (6) – 19 Dec 2016 Berlin Christmas market lorry attack 'ID found', after 24 hours of searching lorry cab
    (7) – 22 May 2017 Manchester UK 'suicide bomber leaves ID' at scene amidst another 'terror on 22nd'
    (8) – 17 Aug 2017 Barcelona deadly terror attack by white van, 'Spanish passport found in van'

    Also related & of interest
    'Mossad did the Barcelona attack' – Israel heavily involved with Barcelona police – from Aangirfan on her site

    republic, September 9, 2017 at 11:43 am GMT

    @Brabantian List of Passport / ID documents found at terrorism attack scenes - at least 8, including those Linh Dinh mentions above

    (1) - 11 Sep 2001 passport found in NYC towers rubble tho aeroplane had 'turned to vapour'
    (2) - 7 Jul 2005 London bomboings - ID of '4th bomber' allegedly 'found by UK police'
    (3) - 7 Jan 2015 Charlie Hebdo, passport in car in front of Paris Jewish deli where Mossad meets
    (4) - 13 Nov 2015 Bataclan Paris passport flew from body 'after killer exploded his suicide vest'
    (5) - 14 Jul 2016 Nice France lorry attack 'passport found'
    (6) - 19 Dec 2016 Berlin Christmas market lorry attack 'ID found', after 24 hours of searching lorry cab
    (7) - 22 May 2017 Manchester UK 'suicide bomber leaves ID' at scene amidst another 'terror on 22nd'
    (8) - 17 Aug 2017 Barcelona deadly terror attack by white van, 'Spanish passport found in van'

    Also related & of interest
    'Mossad did the Barcelona attack' - Israel heavily involved with Barcelona police - from Aangirfan on her site
    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/mossad-did-barcelona-attack.html
    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/barcelona-false-flag-part-3.html https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Lost_and_Found_ID

    Classic examples of this type of "lost and found id" were Oswald's lost wallet and James Earl Ray's dropped bundle of documents (ML King)

    Cranky, September 9, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

    Dinh, you are a fool. The Spanish police until the last two decades were always a bit trigger happy. And then you forget the Guardia Civil. They were the people in charge of keeping Franco's Spain quiet, and it was quiet like the grave. The really funny part is the Arab folks are brimming with anger that is now being met by the anger of the natives. Read the Blood of Spain, and see the complicated relationship between Franco's Moros and how they ravaged parts of Spain during the Civil War. The really ironic part is these "radicalized" kids are simply fodder for the papers back home, and an excuse to begin the round ups and mass deportations.

    Fascism is now returning to Europe because of the liberal insanity of open borders and mass immigration.

    Go see this in Spain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valle_de_los_Ca%C3%ADdos

    Built by the prisoners of France, and then ponder what it means when a people get tired of too much change.

    Simpleguest, September 9, 2017 at 4:34 pm GMT

    Nice read, indeed. Regarding the main idea of the article, that the:

    " .. American Israel Empire is working nonstop to deform the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and, frankly, the rest of the world."

    I think the author misses the role of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, who appear to be the main financiers of the work performed by the above American Israel Empire.

    Perhaps the term Petrodollar Empire would be more accurate? As a bonus, it also complies better to the rules of political correctness.

    DFH, September 9, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT

    Which seems more likely prima facie , Muslim terrorism or that the whole thing was faked? The whole premise of this article seems to be that it's simply ludicrous that a Muslim would ever do something like ram a car into a crowd of people.

    jacques sheete, September 9, 2017 at 11:36 pm GMT

    You're being played, in short.

    For sure. Deja vu all over again and again. Another fine one, LD!

    Dumbo, September 10, 2017 at 3:47 am GMT

    It's like in the great movie by Kurosawa, Yojimbo, one guy playing both sides one against the other. Except Sanjuro was a good guy trying to kill a bunch of thugs and bring peace to the town, while our globo-masters prefer to see innocent people being murdered and the world in chaos.

    Anon, Disclaimer September 10, 2017 at 6:11 pm GMT

    @Linh Dinh "Barcelona Massacre, the testimony of Bruno Gulotta's father," delivered a day after his son's death:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbvhAwlYgfA

    Linh, the Orlando video seems obviously fake. For those who look for those things, there are plenty of give-aways. But what's your point with the Barcelona video? I don't speak Spanish or Catalan, as the case may be, but he seems to be fairly dispassionate and therefore not bullshitting. I do hope there was a point you were making. There is enough in what you say, so that your linguistic showing off is a pointless irritation. I would like to make my point with a pointless Hindi quip, but my phone doesn't support the script.

    Dumbo, September 10, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT

    @fish

    What Merkel has done in Germany is incredible. She took in a million, a million and a half refugees, and there has been no major problem. It has been a great success, a miracle."
    Yeah....good luck with that! By the time this all sorts out historically Merkel will rate lower than ol Schickelgruber.

    Mutti.....Europes greatest "Crazy Cat Lady"!

    "and there has been no major problem"

    Except for a few stabbings, shootings and bombings as well as general malaise and waste of taxpayer's money, but what is that compared to the glory of diversity?
    Well, I guess Germany had too few kebab shops

    "By the time this all sorts out historically Merkel will rate lower than ol Schickelgruber."

    The problem of politics and especially democracy is that politicians act for short term gains, but their decisions affect everybody else in the long term. By the time the Scheiße hits the fan Merkel and her friends will be happily retired in Switzerland or Monaco.

    Andrew Nichos, September 11, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

    You'd have to be blind and stupid not have noticed this convenient habit of Muslim terrorists. I wonder why the IRA/ Baader Meinhof/Brigata Rossi or the westher,men didn't have the same habit?

    NoseytheDuke, September 11, 2017 at 4:26 am GMT

    You'd have to be blind and stupid not have noticed this convenient habit of pseudo moslem terrorists. I wonder why the IRA/ Baader Meinhof/Brigata Rossi or the Weathermen didn't have the same habit?

    I fixed that for you, mate. The frequency of this seemingly ritual habit is amazing I agree. It is certainly one for the Coincidence Theorists out there.

    Erebus, September 11, 2017 at 5:39 am GMT

    @Intelligent Dasein From the banner of this website:

    A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
    I am here reminded of Jerry Seinfeld's wise observation that "Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason."

    I would advise Ron Unz to take this saying to heart and to spike the execrable Linh Dinh from these pages, and his butt-buddy Revusky, too.

    I am here reminded of Jerry Seinfeld's wise observation that "Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason."

    Seinfeld would have been wiser if he had said that it's always less travelled for a reason. That reason is invariably along the lines of it being less convenient, more arduous, and more challenging. It often takes you to uncomfortable places, and you have to leave your beloved baggage behind.
    Most people naturally choose to walk the broad level path that's been thoughtfully laid out for them. It doesn't go anywhere at all, except maybe in a giant circle, so that it doesn't matter where they start or where they stop, but they get to keep and even accumulate baggage along the way and that's what travelling is all about, isn't it?

    NoseytheDuke, September 11, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

    @utu Looks like Linh Dinh was turned by Revusky. Everything must be a hoax. This is their starting position: It is a hoax until proven otherwise.

    And Revusky comes up with his cheap schtick about the "emotional register." As if he ever seen true reactions of real people who lost relatives? All his life like all the hoax mongering youtube yahoos he was exposed to movies with the overacted emotional displays by actors and this formed the baseline for the youtube yahoos and Revusky. So when he sees more measure reactions of real people he thinks it must be bad acting. Yes, if you haven't noticed, the real life is full of bad acting, you fool.

    More interesting would be to read about how is the bromance evolving? Actually real life is usually quite authentic which is the 'real' part and since several big "terror"events have had some inexplicable aspects to them suggesting the involvement of trickery it would be wise to suspect that of other events too. If you've been mugged while walking in the street a couple of times it would be completely rational and indeed prudent if you crossed the street to avoid a stranger, or clutched a hidden weapon as a stranger approached. This is natural and the survival instinct at work.

    As to the emotional register, most people have not studied acting yet they can spot poor acting on TV or in a movie very quickly because they have experienced human behaviour their entire lives. When the behaviour or physical action doesn't match the dialogue or situation it appears very odd to us. Some people are more observant than others, this is why professional actors like to study the traits and quirks of people.

    Linh Dinh has written some really excellent articles as many commenters have approved and stated as much but if you don't like them why bother reading or commenting? Jonathan Revusky too has written some very worthwhile articles in my opinion but he doesn't seem to take criticism well and has made a few enemies here but again, if you don't like them why not spend your time reading the work of other people?

    bb., September 11, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT

    i agree that the passports left behind all the time are a little bit weird. when some shit goes down, among friends, we jokingly ask if they found the passports yet? but it could also be that they want to leave them behind, as a martyr signature or something maybe. like now they recruited irma for their cause..saying god is on their side.
    but then again..i am susceptible to consider weird shit. like the boston bombings for example. I saw a very strange video of a simulation of a bombing attack which looked very real, like tv footage, but maybe that's the point of a good simulation.
    we live in weird times. information flow is corrupted and not to be trusted. stanislaw lem wrote about it 40years ago and I always think about it reading news.

    escobar, September 11, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT

    Linh Dinh's and others' dark dreams:

    The American Israel Empire, the Anglo Zionist Conspiracy, the Jew Bolshevik plot

    How do the Jews have time for all that and make so much money, run their dentistry, legal, media, entertainment empires and lust after blond shiksa cheerleaders as well?
    Maybe it's from those gefilte fish they eat, or from the chopped liver they do even better than this sample produced by Linh Dinh.

    Joe Hide, September 11, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

    Millions of us have been aware of the "Empire" for years now Linh. We just don't have access to the media expression as you do. We tend to be quiet about it until we sense a person or group is open to this Truth. Most people think inside the box because it's safe, comforting, and lacks unpleasant reactions. We who want the Truth value your articles, because we really do believe that "The Truth will set you free."

    Santoculto, September 11, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT

    Francisco, a typical teacher of philosophy and never a real philosopher. Most of this "refugees" are permanent immigrants, that's why this "refugee crisis" is just a way to accelerate the capitulation of Europe. Real refugees came back to their countries when they have opportunity. In the end the most effective way to stop middle east conflicts must be done via exposition of real (((criminals))), the direct responsible for all this shit. Only the truth can solve any problem and (((problem))).

    Teacher of history's philosophy, what most of this "philosophers" are. Real philosophers learn/or invent and teach real or valid philosophical methods of thinking/analytical-critical thinking and of course subsequent action/application.

    anonymous, Disclaimer September 11, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    The author is claiming it's all fake because the participants were inept and stupid. They possibly were being monitored and followed all along. That doesn't make it a staged fake event. "Kosher Nostra"? What's that supposed to mean? Jews are scapegoated for what Muslims do and have been doing for close to fourteen hundred years? It took the Spanish hundreds of years of struggle to free themselves from Muslim overlordship and now they're just supposed to wash their brains of any historical memory? Those third worlders written about so lovingly add nothing to Spain besides just some food joints. The author doesn't live there anyway so why is he telling them how to live?"Drugged and inflamed" is not necessarily true of all of America. The author is probably an alcoholic and needs to stop hanging around craphole taverns with all those dysfunctional boozers.

    Hairway To Steven, September 11, 2017 at 8:30 pm GMT

    Conspiracy theories like those expressed in this article and in many of the comments are for those either lacking the good sense to appreciate that the world is complex or the intellectual patience to sort through that complexity.

    In the absence of these qualities, conspiracy nuts come up with unified theories that "explain everything" (e.g., the Jews control the world).

    Actually moving out of the basement of their mom's house, or even losing their virginity, might help, but most of these sweaty little pamphleteers are lost causes whose lives rarely extend beyond a circle of like-minded friends and the insular concerns expressed in their over-heated and under-read blogs.

    Stan d Mute, September 11, 2017 at 10:34 pm GMT

    @DFH Which seems more likely prima facie , Muslim terrorism or that the whole thing was faked?
    The whole premise of this article seems to be that it's simply ludicrous that a Muslim would ever do something like ram a car into a crowd of people.

    Which seems more likely prima facie, Muslim terrorism or that the whole thing was faked?
    The whole premise of this article seems to be that it's simply ludicrous that a Muslim would ever do something like ram a car into a crowd of people.

    I am always deeply skeptical of these false flag claims. We bomb and kill arabs daily, yet create magnificent conspiracy theories to explain how it is someone else blowing crap up in vengeance.

    Why would Israel need to frame Muslim bombers when so many are so willing to do the job themselves and avenge their dead? Israel certainly pulls our strings to conduct the bombardment and they control American politics – why would they need to fabricate murders of random faceless Spaniards? How does that keep American taxpayers footing the bill for Zionism?

    It's really pretty simple isn't it? Before we decided to throw in with England and help genocide the Palestinians we had few problems with arabs. Now we've expanded our mission to include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc and our blowback is serious. The arabs are doing what I'd do if a foreign power bombed my family. I could not care less what happens to Israelis or arabs. We need to either nuke the entire Arab world or leave it the hell alone – none of them are worth a single American life.

    Art, September 12, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

    How stupid must you be to not see that the American Israel Empire has rigged every aspect of your reality?

    ...The pattern of human nature that they use is called the Stockholm syndrome.

    It has been documented that a group of people can be turned against themselves when they are captured and terrorized, and in the process, they are propagandized to believe that the terrorizers themselves are the true victims. The terrorists tell the those they captured, that they are doing this because they themselves are the real victims.

    The syndrome is that the captured group begin to sympathize with their terrorists. They take to heart that the terrorists are indeed victims, and that they should be supported. .

    ... ... ...

    Think Peace -- Art

    Stan d Mute, September 12, 2017 at 2:50 am GMT

    @ChuckOrloski "... none of them are worth an American life."

    Stan d Mute,

    The dangerous thing about your rather common conclusion (above) is the stinky fact that, for the sake of creating Greater Israel, Neoconservatives are in your "Amen Corner" and also would green light the "nuking" of Iran.

    Thank you.

    Neoconservatives are in your "Amen Corner" and also would green light the "nuking" of Iran.

    Don't paint me with your misrepresentation. I wrote " nuke the entire Arab world " Your Iran reply is a strawman.

    Few neocons would endorse my suggestion to either obliterate the Middle East (drill for oil through the glass) or abandon their first loyalty of Zionism and all resulting meddling and murdering in the region.

    Tell it like it is, September 12, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

    Cry me a river. No sympathy from me. This article is completely one sided. What kind of investigative reporting is this when the author didn't even interview the police and review the evidence, but simply hurl out accusations through hearsay from the average guys on the street.

    ... ... ...

    denk, September 13, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

    The terror factory

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34322.htm

    It has already been exposed that 95% of domestic 'terror attacks' were FBI/CIA
    false flags.

    [Sep 17, 2017] How to effectively resist truth-killing efforts of various agencies not interested in revealing the truth on the particular subject

    Notable quotes:
    "... In all those discussions, be it Obamacare, neoclassical economics, neoliberalism, globalization, automation, or supposed Russian interference in elections the key question is how to effectively resist truth-killing efforts of various agencies not interested in revealing the truth on the particular subject. ..."
    "... Now those disinformation efforts can be easily amplified via Internet, which serves as a kind of echo-chamber. For example, just a half-dozen of like-minded people can drive Internet discussion in the necessary direction and spam or smear opponents. Essentially such informal cliques are quite capable to dominate discussion in popular blogs. ..."
    "... The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth - factual reality - is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. ..."
    "... Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. ..."
    Jun 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova June 27, 2017 at 10:50 AM

    In all those discussions, be it Obamacare, neoclassical economics, neoliberalism, globalization, automation, or supposed Russian interference in elections the key question is how to effectively resist truth-killing efforts of various agencies not interested in revealing the truth on the particular subject.

    Now those disinformation efforts can be easily amplified via Internet, which serves as a kind of echo-chamber. For example, just a half-dozen of like-minded people can drive Internet discussion in the necessary direction and spam or smear opponents. Essentially such informal cliques are quite capable to dominate discussion in popular blogs.

    Paul R. Pillar in his May 2 essay in National interest provided an interesting overview of this problem. While his analyses is related to Trump climate change policies some points have wider applicability:

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/truth-killing-meta-issue-20452?page=2

    The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth - factual reality - is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject.

    Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently.

    To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.

    [Sep 17, 2017] Society has always been divided into two classes: those who write the script, and those who live it; the programmers and the users.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The narratives are, after all not intended to reveal any truths, but to get their subjects to do something the elites want them to do, and in the course their doing it, to cement the elites' power. Subjects, being what they are, have fallen for lies since the Pharoahs told whoppers to get their peasants to invest in pyramids, or the Archdruids got their's to die hauling and arranging 20T rocks on a dreary plain. ..."
    "... As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true, that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier. That's what made them elites. Nothing else. ..."
    "... Much more interesting is what happens when narratives break down ..."
    Sep 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Anonymous, Disclaimer September 15, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT

    @Erebus

    This is their starting position: It is a hoax until proven otherwise.
    If it's turned out to be a hoax the last 20x it happened, why would you insist on starting at the opposite end? Seems inefficient, no?

    What is perhaps even more inefficient on the part of Dinh and Revusky is to go interminably 'round and 'round this spot. Ok, we know that the narratives elites feed their subjects are invariably false. They have to be, or they wouldn't work. Twas ever thus.

    The narratives are, after all not intended to reveal any truths, but to get their subjects to do something the elites want them to do, and in the course their doing it, to cement the elites' power. Subjects, being what they are, have fallen for lies since the Pharoahs told whoppers to get their peasants to invest in pyramids, or the Archdruids got their's to die hauling and arranging 20T rocks on a dreary plain.

    As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true, that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier. That's what made them elites. Nothing else.

    Much more interesting is what happens when narratives break down, which is why Dinh's vignettes from the fraying seams of the American Narrative are more fascinating than these half-baked, pseudo-forensic analyses of "terror events". Maybe he thinks too many people still believe these bugaboos and should be brought around to enlightenment. That's as may be, but one wonders whether he understands that if enough people "come around", the forces unleashed are far more disruptive than when they accept, if not believe, the lies.

    As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true, that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier. That's what made them elites. Nothing else.

    In other words, society has always been divided into two classes: those who write the script, and those who live it; the programmers and the users.

    What's gone wrong? Are too many people finding the root shell?

    [Sep 17, 2017] "Growing more and more unaccustomed to reflect and form any opinions of their own, people will begin to talk in the same tone as we because we alone shall be offering them new directions for thought."

    While from a quite questionable source ( The Protocols of the Elders of Zio -- Wikipedia suggests that it was a forgery attributed iether to Russian journalists Matvei Golovinski (Golovinski's role in the writing of the Protocols is disputed by Michael Hagemeister, Richard Levy and Cesare De Michelis) and Manasevich-Manuilov at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky , Chief of the Russian secret service in Paris; it was also traced back to works of Goedsche and Jacques Crétineau-Joly Lucien Wolf (an English Jewish journalist). But a dramatic exposé occurred in the series of articles in The Times by its Constantinople reporter, Philip Graves , who discovered the plagiarism from the work of Maurice Joly ). Still the phase reflects the essence of brainwashing pretty well...
    Sep 17, 2017 | en.wikipedia.org

    [Sep 17, 2017] People fear independent thought for concern that they will be deterred from upward employment mobility. In short, we suffer the enforcement of an institutional hindance to Free Speech.

    Sep 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Art > , September 15, 2017 at 11:24 pm GMT

    Fear is "a powerful thing" and such zeitgeist pervades America to an extent that people fear independent thought for concern that they will be deterred from upward employment mobility. In short, we suffer the enforcement of an institutional hindance to Free Speech.

    Call it what it is – TERRORISM.

    "Terror"
    1. Intense, overpowering fear.
    2. One that instills intense fear.
    3. The ability to instill intense fear.
    4. Violence committed or threatened by a group, especially against civilians , in the pursuit of political goals.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 16, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Pertas

    Sep 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Introduction

    Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy agendas.

    In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities.

    We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.

    The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath

    The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of unprecedented military-political power.

    The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration. As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority. The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.

    The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China.

    The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars. The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.

    Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered global order.

    Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy, darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.

    The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president, but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's global order.

    Trump Under Obama's International Order

    After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'.

    Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones.

    Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities. Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and their programs.

    Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.

    A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed ' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.

    The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities as President.

    General Mattis: The Militarization of America

    General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.

    The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.

    General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.

    The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire. The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and consular staff.

    These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.

    What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria (which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton) and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.

    The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea, which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential' threat to the US mainland.

    Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed. Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea. Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)

    Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and bellicose provocation against Iran.

    When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements' .

    Militarization: An Evaluation

    Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog' Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of Obama holdovers!

    The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.

    While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders.

    In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea. Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq) of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.

    Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.

    At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump, may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.

    The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners' in the Trump regime.

    The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.

    The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.

    Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.

    Conclusion

    The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.

    Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden, to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.

    But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout the South China Sea.

    Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion. The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for whatever Party.

    The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:

    First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified economies.

    Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees.

    High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!

    In sum:

    Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.

    Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.

    Raffler > , September 15, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT

    American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish the opposite of the stated intention. They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter.

    Parbes > , September 15, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

    An excellent truthful exposition of what has really been going on and a great essay by James Petras. Kudos.

    peterAUS > , September 15, 2017 at 10:06 pm GMT

    Stopped reading at

    embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.

    nsa > , September 16, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

    Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent, exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down). Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable. The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one. How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ..

    Priss Factor > , Website September 16, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT

    Relevant to now

    NoseytheDuke > , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

    @peterAUS Back to watching Game of Thrones then? Good for you.

    Apart from some very minor mistakes that should have been fixed with proofreading, this is an excellent account of the situation.

    anonymous > , Disclaimer September 16, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

    @NoseytheDuke I'm the commenter who complained about the poor quality of the last Petras article. This one isn't as deficient in that respect, but still would benefit from another review for misplaced/missing punctuation, etc. The redundancy is also annoying -- a well written "Conclusion" wouldn't end with a two paragraph coda. If the author wants to convince his reader, then he should spend more time on his craft or seek editorial assistance.

    To commenter "Wally":

    You may still feel compelled to play wingman, but my criticisms do not concern the substance of the articles. My point is that they are poorly written essays that needlessly damage the reputation of this excellent website.

    KA > , September 16, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT

    It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant .
    Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are,they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .

    Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to campaign for re employment .
    But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power structure will do same to military .

    [Sep 16, 2017] Who Rules America by James Petras

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Israel Firsters' ..."
    "... 'Three Israel First bankerteers' ..."
    "... Troika of three generals ..."
    "... Israel-Firsters, ..."
    "... 'Senior Adviser' ..."
    "... 'anti-Semitism'. ..."
    "... 'terrain for struggle'. ..."
    "... Trump's Generals ..."
    "... 'final solution' ..."
    "... 'economic nationalism', ..."
    "... 'the deplorables' ..."
    Sep 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Looks like "Free marketers category by Petras corresponds to neoliberal elite...

    Introduction

    In the last few months, several competing political, economic and military sectors – linked to distinct ideological and ethnic groups – have clearly emerged at the centers of power.

    We can identify some of the key competing and interlocking directorates of the power elite:

    1. Free marketers, with the ubiquitous presence of the 'Israel First' crowd.

    2. National capitalists, linked to rightwing ideologues.

    3. Generals, linked to the national security and the Pentagon apparatus, as well as defense industry.

    4. Business elites, linked to global capital.

    This essay attempts to define the power wielders and evaluate their range of power and its impact.

    The Economic Power Elite: Israel-Firsters and Wall Street CEO's

    'Israel Firsters' dominate the top economic and political positions within the Trump regime and, interestingly, are among the Administration's most vociferous opponents. These include: the Federal Reserve Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, as well as her Vice-Chair, Stanley Fischer, an Israeli citizen and former (sic) Governor of the Bank of Israel.

    Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and an Orthodox Jew, acts as his top adviser on Middle East Affairs. Kushner, a New Jersey real estate mogul, set himself up as the archenemy of the economic nationalists in the Trump inner circle. He supports every Israeli power and land grab in the Middle East and works closely with David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel (and fanatical supporter of the illegal Jewish settlements) and Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International negotiations. With three Israel-Firsters determining Middle East policy, there is not even a fig leaf of balance.

    The Treasury Secretary is Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, who leads the neo-liberal free market wing of the Wall Street sector within the Trump regime. Gary Cohn, a longtime Wall Street influential, heads the National Economic Council. They form the core business advisers and lead the neo-liberal anti-nationalist Trump coalition committed to undermining economic nationalist policies.

    An influential voice in the Attorney General's office is Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller the chief investigator, which led to the removal of nationalists from the Trump Administration.

    The fairy godfather of the anti-nationalist Mnuchin-Cohn team is Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sach's Chairman. The 'Three Israel First bankerteers' are spearheading the fight to deregulate the banking sector, which had ravaged the economy, leading to the 2008 collapse and foreclosure of millions of American homeowners and businesses.

    The 'Israel-First' free market elite is spread across the entire ruling political spectrum, including ranking Democrats in Congress, led by Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer and the Democratic Head of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. The Democratic Party Israel Firsters have allied with their free market brethren in pushing for investigations and mass media campaigns against Trump's economic nationalist supporters and their eventual purge from the administration.

    The Military Power Elite: The Generals

    The military power elite has successfully taken over from the elected president in major decision-making. Where once the war powers rested with the President and the Congress, today a collection of fanatical militarists make and execute military policy, decide war zones and push for greater militarization of domestic policing. Trump has turned crucial decisions over to those he fondly calls 'my Generals' as he continues to dodge accusations of corruption and racism.

    Trump appointed Four-Star General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis (retired USMC) – a general who led the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – as Secretary of Defense. Mattis (whose military 'glories' included bombing a large wedding party in Iraq) is leading the campaign to escalate US military intervention in Afghanistan – a war and occupation that Trump had openly condemned during his campaign. As Defense Secretary, General 'Mad Dog' pushed the under-enthusiastic Trump to announce an increase in US ground troops and air attacks throughout Afghanistan. True to his much-publicized nom-de-guerre , the general is a rabid advocate for a nuclear attack against North Korea.

    Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster (an active duty Three Star General and long time proponent of expanding the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan) became National Security Adviser after the purge of Trump's ally Lt. General Michael Flynn, who opposed the campaign of confrontation and sanctions against Russia and China. McMaster has been instrumental in removing 'nationalists' from Trumps administration and joins General 'Mad Dog' Mattis in pushing for a greater build-up of US troops in Afghanistan.

    Lt. General John Kelly (Retired USMC), another Iraq war veteran and Middle East regime change enthusiast, was appointed White House Chief of Staff after the ouster of Reince Priebus.

    The Administration's Troika of three generals share with the neoliberal Israel First Senior Advisors to Trump, Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner, a deep hostility toward Iran and fully endorse Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's demand that the 2015 Nuclear Accord with Tehran be scrapped.

    Trump's military directorate guarantees that spending for overseas wars will not be affected by budget cuts, recessions or even national disasters.

    The 'Generals' , the Israel First free marketers and the Democratic Party elite lead the fight against the economic nationalists and have succeeded in ensuring that Obama Era military and economic empire building would remain in place and even expand.

    The Economic Nationalist Elite

    The leading strategist and ideologue of Trump's economic nationalist allies in the White House was Steve Bannon. He had been chief political architect and Trump adviser during the electoral campaign. Bannon devised an election campaign favoring domestic manufacturers and American workers against the Wall Street and multinational corporate free marketers. He developed Trump's attack on the global trade agreements, which had led to the export of capital and the devastation of US manufacturing labor.

    Equally significant, Bannon crafted Trumps early public opposition to the generals' 15-year trillion-dollar intervention in Afghanistan and the even more costly series of wars in the Middle East favored by the Israel-Firsters, including the ongoing proxy-mercenary war to overthrow the secular nationalist government of Syria.

    Within 8 month of Trump's administration, the combined forces of the free market economic and military elite, the Democratic Party leaders, overt militarists in the Republican Party and their allies in the mass media succeeded in purging Bannon – and marginalized the mass support base for his 'America First' economic nationalist and anti-'regime change' agenda.

    The anti-Trump 'alliance' will now target the remaining few economic nationalists in the administration. These include: the CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who favors protectionism by weakening the Asian and NAFTA trade agreements and Peter Navarro, Chairman of the White House Trade Council. Pompeo and Navarro face strong opposition from the ascendant neoliberal Zionist troika now dominating the Trump regime.

    In addition, there is Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, a billionaire and former director of Rothschild Inc., who allied with Bannon in threatening import quotas to address the massive US trade deficit with China and the European Union.

    Another Bannon ally is US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer a former military and intelligence analyst with ties to the newsletter Breitbart. He is a strong opponent of the neoliberal, globalizers in and out of the Trump regime.

    'Senior Adviser' and Trump speechwriter, Stephen Miller actively promotes the travel ban on Muslims and stricter restrictions on immigration. Miller represents the Bannon wing of Trump's zealously pro-Israel cohort.

    Sebastian Gorka, Trump's Deputy Assistant in military and intelligence affairs, was more an ideologue than analyst, who wrote for Breitbart and rode to office on Bannon's coat tails. Right after removing Bannon, the 'Generals' purged Gorka in early August on accusations of 'anti-Semitism'.

    Whoever remains among Trump's economic nationalists are significantly handicapped by the loss of Steve Bannon who had provided leadership and direction. However, most have social and economic backgrounds, which also link them to the military power elite on some issues and with the pro-Israel free marketers on others. However, their core beliefs had been shaped and defined by Bannon.

    The Business Power Elite

    Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's Secretary of State and former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Energy Secretary lead the business elite. Meanwhile, the business elite associated with US manufacturing and industry have little direct influence on domestic or foreign policy. While they follow the Wall Street free marketers on domestic policy, they are subordinated to the military elite on foreign policy and are not allied with Steve Bannon's ideological core.

    Trump's business elite, which has no link to the economic nationalists in the Trump regime, provides a friendlier face to overseas economic allies and adversaries.

    Analysis and Conclusion

    The power elite cuts across party affiliations, branches of government and economic strategies. It is not restricted to either political party, Republican or Democratic. It includes free marketers, some economic nationalists, Wall Street power brokers and militarists. All compete and fight for power, wealth and dominance within this administration. The correlation of forces is volatile, changing rapidly in short periods of time – reflecting the lack of cohesion and coherence in the Trump regime.

    Never has the US power elite been subject to such monumental changes in composition and direction during the first year of a new regime.

    During the Obama Presidency, Wall Street and the Pentagon comfortably shared power with Silicon Valley billionaires and the mass media elite. They were united in pursuing an imperial 'globalist' strategy, emphasizing multiple theaters of war and multilateral free trade treaties, which was in the process of reducing millions of American workers to permanent helotry.

    With the inauguration of President Trump, this power elite faced challenges and the emergence of a new strategic configuration, which sought drastic changes in US political economic and military policy.

    The architect of the Trump's campaign and strategy, Steve Bannon, sought to displace the global economic and military elite with his alliance of economic nationalists, manufacturing workers and protectionist business elites. Bannon pushed for a major break from Obama's policy of multiple permanent wars to expanding the domestic market. He proposed troop withdrawal and the end of US military operations in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, while increasing a combination of economic, political and military pressure on China. He sought to end sanctions and confrontation against Moscow and fashion economic ties between the giant energy producers in the US and Russia.

    While Bannon was initially the chief strategist in the White House, he quickly found himself faced with powerful rivals inside the regime, and ardent opponents among Democratic and Republican globalists and especially from the Zionist – neoliberals who systematically maneuvered to win strategic economic and policy positions within the regime. Instead of being a coherent platform from which to formulate a new radical economic strategy, the Trump Administration was turned into a chaotic and vicious 'terrain for struggle'. The Bannon's economic strategy barely got off the ground.

    The mass media and operatives within the state apparatus, linked to Obama's permanent war strategy, first attacked Trump's proposed economic reconciliation with Russia. To undermine any 'de-escalation', they fabricated the Russian spy and election manipulation conspiracy. Their first successful shots were fired at Lt. General Michael Flynn, Bannon's ally and key proponent for reversing the Obama/Clinton policy of military confrontation with Russia. Flynn was quickly destroyed and openly threatened with prosecution as a 'Russian agent' in whipped-up hysteria that resembled the heydays of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    Key economic posts in the Trump regime were split between the Israel-Firster neoliberals and the economic nationalists. The 'Deal Maker' President Trump attempted to harness Wall Street-affiliated neoliberal Zionists to the economic nationalists, linked to Trump's working class electoral base, in formulating new trade relations with the EU and China, which would favor US manufacturers. Given the irreconcilable differences between these forces, Trump's naïve 'deal' weakened Bannon, undermined his leadership and wrecked his nationalist economic strategy.

    While Bannon had secured several important economic appointees, the Zionist neoliberals undercut their authority. The Fischer-Mnuchin-Cohn cohort successfully set a competing agenda.

    The entire Congressional elite from both parties united to paralyze the TrumpBannon agenda. The giant corporate mass media served as a hysterical and rumor-laden megaphone for zealous Congressional and FBI investigators magnifying every nuance of Trump's US Russia relations in search of conspiracy. The combined state-Congressional and Media apparatus overwhelmed the unorganized and unprepared mass base of Bannon electoral coalition which had elected Trump.

    Thoroughly defeated, the toothless President Trump retreated in desperate search for a new power configuration, turning his day-to-day operations over to 'his generals'. The elected civilian President of the United States embraced his generals' pursuit of a new military-globalist alliance and escalation of military threats foremost against North Korea, but including Russia and China. Afghanistan was immediately targeted for an expanded intervention.

    Trump effectively replaced Bannon's economic nationalist strategy with a revival Obama's multi-war military approach.

    The Trump regime re-launched the US attacks on Afghanistan and Syria – exceeding Obama's use of drone attacks on suspected Muslim militants. He intensified sanctions against Russia and Iran, embraced Saudi Arabia's war against the people of Yemen and turned the entire Middle East policy over to his ultra-Zionist Political Advisor (Real Estate mogul and son-in-law) Jared Kushner and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman.

    Trump's retreat turned into a grotesque rout. The Generals embraced the neoliberal Zionists in Treasury and the Congressional global militarists. Communication Directory Anthony Scaramucci was fired. Trump's Chief of Staff General Joe Kelly purged Steve Bannon. Sebastian Gorka was kicked out.

    The eight months of internal struggle between the economic nationalists and the neoliberals has ended: The Zionist-globalist alliance with Trump's Generals now dominate the Power Elite.

    Trump is desperate to adapt to the new configuration, allied to his own Congressional adversaries and the rabidly anti-Trump mass media.

    Having all but decimated Trump's economic nationalists and their program, the Power Elite then mounted a series of media-magnified events centering around a local punch-out in Charlottesville, Virginia between 'white supremacists' and 'anti-fascists'. After the confrontation led to death and injury, the media used Trump's inept attempt to blame both 'baseball bat'-wielding sides, as proof of the President's links to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Neoliberal and Zionists, within the Trump administration and his business councils, all joined in the attack on the President, denouncing his failure to immediately and unilaterally blame rightwing extremists for the mayhem.

    Trump is turning to sectors of the business and Congressional elite in a desperate attempt to hold onto waning support via promises to enact massive tax cuts and deregulate the entire private sector.

    The decisive issue was no longer over one policy or another or even strategy.

    Trump had already lost on all accounts. The 'final solution' to the problem of the election of Donald Trump is moving foreword step-by-step – his impeachment and possible arrest by any and all means.

    What the rise and destruction of economic nationalism in the 'person' of Donald Trump tells us is that the American political system cannot tolerate any capitalist reforms that might threaten the imperial globalist power elite.

    Writers and activists used to think that only democratically elected socialist regimes would be the target of systematic coup d'état. Today the political boundaries are far more restrictive. To call for 'economic nationalism', completely within the capitalist system, and seek reciprocal trade agreements is to invite savage political attacks, trumped up conspiracies and internal military take-overs ending in 'regime change'.

    The global-militarist elite purge of economic nationalists and anti-militarists was supported by the entire US left with a few notable exceptions. For the first time in history the left became an organizational weapon of the pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-Zionist Right in the campaign to oust President Trump. Local movements and leaders, notwithstanding, trade union functionaries, civil rights and immigration politicians, liberals and social democrats have joined in the fight for restoring the worst of all worlds: the Clinton-Bush-Obama/Clinton policy of permanent multiple wars, escalating confrontations with Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela and Trump's deregulation of the US economy and massive tax-cuts for big business.

    We have gone a long-way backwards: from elections to purges and from peace agreements to police state investigations. Today's economic nationalists are labeled 'fascists' ; and displaced workers are 'the deplorables' !

    Americans have a lot to learn and unlearn . Our strategic advantage may reside in the fact that political life in the United States cannot get worse – we really have touched bottom and (barring a nuclear war) we can only look up. (Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    peterAUS > , September 14, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT

    What if there is no other way but to proceed along the current course?
    What if the system is so entrenched that changing it, properly, would collapse it?
    And, the collapse of the system ignites WW3 etc?

    And, the most important, nobody knows what the new course would be.

    One has a feeling .just .a sense .that we are on Titanic but, any change of speed/course will really sink it fast.
    So ..we just keep steaming ..hoping for a miracle?

    And the Captain realized that.
    Yes, he himself thought otherwise in the port, but, when he took the bridge he realized the truth.
    And now he's just sitting there and watching the sea .hoping we won't hit that iceberg on his watch. Perhaps when the First Mate takes over in a while
    Captain, when it happens, will probably be dancing below, entertaining high class passengers.

    jilles dykstra > , September 14, 2017 at 6:47 am GMT

    In my opinion, the USA now is in a state of Civil War, cold, so the country is not ruled.
    I disagree with that it cannot get worse, the cold war can get hot.

    The Alarmist > , September 14, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

    Free Marketers Puuhhhhleeeeze? Call them what they are, which is a crony-oligarchy that dresses itself in free-market clothing to pillage and plunder on a global scale.

    Wizard of Oz > , September 14, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT

    What an agreeable contrast this makes with the typical conspiracy theorist who seems to need everything neatly tied up and a bunch of conspirators who plot and act with error free precision. The swiftness of a result agreeable to globalist business and militatists of various hues does not prevent the account being plausible.

    No mention of Keyser Söze but I read on hoping that the Deep State hadn't been left out. Is's hard to find a live Deep State description in the author's contending categories. So it would be interesting to know whether there is a US Deep State, who constĺitute it, how it operates and whether it is operating today. Is it a useful borrowing for understanding the USA?

    Tradecraft46 > , September 14, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    Trump is a weakling. He developed a message, but he is p-whipped and he caved to his daughter, and her scum husband. I think he had no intention of committing to anything, but rather made 'hamster noises' to get elected.

    He lied and will be finished soon.

    Low Voltage > , September 14, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

    James,

    Nice effort. Can I make a request? Please write an article about the IDEAS that rule America. The attitudes of the billionaire, the Deep State, the working stiff, and the low-level bureaucracy. All the passengers on the ship are doing their part as the Titanic heads for the iceberg.

    What are the ideas that keep the ship of state plugging along?

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

    Highly recommended!
    This is a weak and way too long article. That demonstrated inability to think in scientific terms such neoliberalism, neocolonialism and end of cheap oil. Intead it quckly deteriorated into muchy propaganda. But it touches on legacy of Troskyst Burnham, who was one of God fathers of neoliberalism.
    Zelikov is the guy who whitewashed 9/11. This neocon does not use the term neoliberalism even once but he writes like a real neoliberal Trotskyite.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Managerial State ..."
    "... Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated admiration." ..."
    "... Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster. ..."
    "... Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice." ..."
    "... Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted." ..."
    "... "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all." ..."
    "... Nineteen Eighty-Four. ..."
    "... By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became one of the original editors of the National Review ..."
    "... Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism ..."
    "... What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. ..."
    "... Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our ..."
    "... "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes." ..."
    Sep 05, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

    My first prophet was a man named James Burnham. In 1941 Burnham was 35 years old. From a wealthy family -- railroad money -- he was a star student at Princeton, then on to Balliol College, Oxford. Burnham was an avowed Communist. He joined with Trotsky during the 1930s.

    By 1941, Burnham had moved on, as he published his first great book of prophecy, called The Managerial State . The book made him a celebrity. It was widely discussed on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Burnham's vision of the future is one where the old ideologies, like socialism, have been left behind. The rulers are really beyond all that. They are the managerial elite, the technocrats, the scientists, and the bureaucrats who manage the all-powerful enterprises and agencies.

    You know this vision. You have seen it so often at the movies. It is the vision in all those science fiction dystopias. You know, with the gilded masterminds ruling all from their swank towers and conference rooms.

    It's a quite contemporary vision. For instance, it is not far at all from the way I think the rulers of China imagine themselves and their future.

    In this and other writings, Burnham held up Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany as the pure exemplars of these emerging managerial states. They were showing the way to the future. By comparison, FDR's New Deal was a primitive version. And he thought it would lose.

    Burnham's views were not so unusual among the leading thinkers of the 1940s, like Joseph Schumpeter or Karl Polanyi. All were pessimistic about the future of free societies, including Friedrich Hayek, who really believed that once-free countries were on the "road to serfdom." But Burnham took the logic further.

    Just after the second world war ended, my other prophet decided to answer Burnham. You know him as George Orwell.

    Eric Blair, who used George Orwell as his pen name, was about Burnham's age. Their backgrounds were very different. Orwell was English. Poor. Orwell's lungs were pretty rotten and he would not live long. Orwell was a democratic socialist who came to loathe Soviet communism. He had volunteered to fight in Spain, was shot through the throat. Didn't stop his writing.

    Orwell was profoundly disturbed by Burnham's vision of the emerging "managerial state." All too convincing. Yet he also noticed how, when Burnham described the new superstates and their demigod rulers, Burnham exhibited "a sort of fascinated admiration."

    Orwell wrote : For Burnham, "Communism may be wicked, but at any rate it is big: it is a terrible, all-devouring monster which one fights against but which one cannot help admiring." To Orwell, Burnham's mystical picture of "terrifying, irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement." irresistible power" amounted to "an act of homage, and even of self-abasement."

    Burnham had predicted Nazi victory. Later, Burnham had predicted the Soviet conquest of all Eurasia. By 1947 Burnham was calling for the U.S. to launch a preventive nuclear war against the Soviet Union to head off the coming disaster.

    Orwell saw a pattern. Such views seemed symptoms of "a major mental disease, and its roots," he argued, which, "lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice."

    Orwell thought that "power worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."

    Orwell had another critique. He deplored the fact that, "The tendency of writers like Burnham, whose key concept is 'realism,' is to overrate the part played in human affairs by sheer force." Orwell went on. "I do not say that he is wrong all the time. But somehow his picture of the world is always slightly distorted."

    Finally, Orwell thought Burnham overestimated the resilience of the managerial state model and underestimated the qualities of open and civilized societies. Burnham's vision did not allow enough play for "the fact that certain rules of conduct have to be observed if human society is to hold together at all."

    Having written these critical essays, Orwell then tried to make his case against Burnham in another way. This anti-Burnham argument became a novel -- the novel called Nineteen Eighty-Four.

    That book came out in 1949. Orwell died the next year.

    By that time, Burnham had become a consultant to the CIA, advising its new office for covert action. That was the capacity in which Burnham met the young William F. Buckley. Burnham mentored Buckley. It was with Buckley that Burnham became one of the original editors of the National Review and a major conservative commentator. In 1983, President Reagan awarded Burnham the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    Not that Burnham's core vision had changed. In 1964, he published another book of prophecy. This was entitled Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism . The Soviet Union and its allies had the will to power. Liberalism and its defenders did not. "The primary issue before Western civilization today, and before its member nations, is survival." (Sound familiar?)

    And it was liberalism, Burnham argued, with its self-criticism and lack of commitment, that would pull our civilization down from within. Suicide.

    So was Burnham wrong? Was Orwell right? This is a first-class historical question. Burnham's ideal of the "managerial state" is so alive today.

    State the questions another way: Do open societies really work better than closed ones? Is a more open and civilized world really safer and better for Americans? If we think yes, then what is the best way to prove that point?

    My answer comes in three parts. The first is about how to express our core values. American leaders tend to describe their global aims as the promotion of the right values. Notice that these are values in how other countries are governed. President Obama's call for an "international order of laws and institutions," had the objective of winning a clash of domestic governance models around the world. This clash he called: "authoritarianism versus liberalism."

    Yet look at how many values he felt "liberalism" had to include. For Obama the "road of true democracy," included a commitment to "liberty, equality, justice, and fairness" and curbing the "excesses of capitalism."

    What about our current president? Last month he urged his listeners to be ready to fight to the death for the "values" of the West. He named two: "individual freedom and sovereignty. "

    A week later, two of his chief aides, Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster, doubled down on the theme that America was promoting, with its friends, the values that "drive progress throughout the world." They too had a laundry list. They omitted "sovereignty." But then, narrowing the list only to the "most important," they listed: "[T]he dignity of every person equality of women innovation freedom of speech and of religion and free and fair markets."

    By contrast, the anti-liberal core values seem simple. The anti-liberals are for authority and against anarchy and disorder. And they are for community and against the subversive, disruptive outsider.

    There are of course many ways to define a "community" -- including tribal, religious, political, or professional. It is a source of identity, of common norms of behavior, of shared ways of life.

    Devotees of freedom and liberalism do not dwell as much on "community." Except to urge that everybody be included, and treated fairly.

    But beliefs about "community" have always been vital to human societies. In many ways, the last 200 years have been battles about how local communities try to adapt or fight back against growing global pressures -- especially economic and cultural, but often political and even military.

    So much of the divide between anti-liberals or liberals is cultural. Little has to do with "policy" preferences. Mass politics are defined around magnetic poles of cultural attraction. If Americans engage this culture war on a global scale, I plead for modesty and simplicity. As few words as possible, as fundamental as possible.

    Certainly our history counsels modesty. Americans and the American government have a very mixed and confusing record in the way we have, in practice, related values in foreign governance to what our government does.

    Also, until the late 19th century, "democracy" was never at the core of liberal thinking. Liberal thinkers were very interested in the design of republics. But classical liberal thinkers, including many of the American founders, always had a troubled relationship with democracy. There were always two issues.

    First, liberals were devoted, above all, to liberty of thought and reason. Pace Tom Paine, the people were often regarded as intolerant, ill-informed, and superstitious -- unreliable judges of scientific truth, historical facts, moral duty, and legal disputes. The other problem is that democracy used to be considered a synonym for mob rule. Elections can be a supreme check on tyranny. But sometimes the people have exalted their dictators and have not cared overmuch about the rule of law. It therefore still puzzles me: Why is there so much debate about which people are "ready for democracy"? Few of the old theorists thought any people were ready for such a thing.

    It was thought, though, that any civilized people might be persuaded to reject tyranny. Any civilized community might prefer a suitably designed and confining constitution, limiting powers and working at a reliable rule of law.

    By the way, that "rule of law" was a value that Mr. Cohn and General McMaster left off of their "most important" list -- yet is anything more essential to our way of life?

    Aside from the relation with democracy, the other great ideal that any liberal order finds necessary, yet troubling, is the one about community: nationalism.

    Consider the case of Poland. For 250 years, Poland has been a great symbol to the rest of Europe. For much of Polish and European history, nationalism was an ally of liberalism. Versus Czarist tyranny, versus aristocratic oligarchs.

    But sometimes not. Today, Poland's governing Law and Justice party is all about being anti-Russian, anti-Communist, and pro-Catholic. They are all about "authority" and "community." At the expense of ? Poland's president has just had to intervene when the rule of law itself seemed to be at stake.

    We Americans and our friends should define what we stand for. Define it in a way that builds a really big tent. In 1989, working for the elder President Bush, I was able to get the phrase, "commonwealth of free nations," into a couple of the president's speeches. It didn't stick. Nearly 20 years later, in 2008, the late Harvard historian Ernest May and I came up with a better formulation. We thought that through human history the most adaptable and successful societies had turned out to be the ones that were "open and civilized."

    Rather than the word, "liberal," the word "open" seems more useful. It is the essence of liberty. Indian prime minister Narendra Modi uses it in his speeches; Karl Popper puts it at the core of his philosophy; Anne-Marie Slaughter makes it a touchstone in her latest book. That's a big tent right there.

    Also the ideal of being "civilized." Not such an old-fashioned ideal. It gestures to the yearning for community. Not only a rule of law, also community norms, the norms that reassure society and regulate rulers -- whether in a constitution or in holy scripture.

    Chinese leaders extol the value of being civilized -- naturally, they commingle it with Sinification. Muslims take pride in a heritage that embraces norms of appropriate conduct by rulers. And, of course, in an open society, community norms can be contested and do evolve.

    The retired Indian statesman, Shyam Saran, recently lectured on, "Is a China-centric world inevitable?" To Saran, "A stable world order needs a careful balance between power and legitimacy. Legitimacy is upheld when states, no matter how powerful, observe norms of state behavior." India, Saran said, had the "civilizational attributes."

    ... ... ...

    Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia, and is a former executive director of the 9/11 Commission.

    [Sep 04, 2017] The Rise Of The Deep State How They Got Their Power To Manipulate For Ultimate Control by Mac Slavo

    Notable quotes:
    "... " The development of a kind of bureaucratic absolutism is not limited, however, to totalitarian countries. A mild form of professional absolutism is evident in every country in the mediating class of civil servants who bridge the gap between man and his rulers. Such a bureaucracy may be used to help or to harm the citizens it should serve. ..."
    "... How Geography Gave the US Power https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-WO-c9xHms P.S. there are no external threats. The fungus is among us ..."
    "... At some level, everyone realizes that mainstream life is crazy and extreme because it is so artificial and hectic, and because it is so physically and psychologically unhealthy. Everyone also realizes, at some level, that mainstream life is crazy and extreme because everyone is being played. ..."
    "... Who rules America? The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess. ..."
    "... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"!the mass media!functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
    "... Is The CIA Writing Legislation For The U.S. Congress? ..."
    "... So the question is, how do we combat the deep state and get our freedom back? ..."
    "... No one can answer this question because the world is too complex. When things are so complex it becomes difficult to make heads or tails out of anything we can say the world is in a state of chaos. Too many moving parts. It is possible we never get our freedoms back. The biggest threat to freedom in my estimation is the capture of the justice departments. At the highest levels of power crimes against humanity go completely ignored and unpunished. There is no limit to how much value can be transferred from the People to the Oligarchy. Charles H. Smith has documented this trend clearly and its not reversing, its only accelerating. Neo feudalism is alive and well. ..."
    "... There is the working class who is continually squeezed to the limit of failure. They are weakened while at the same time the unproductive class is strengthened. Global economies are destroyed and the criminals go not only unpunished but promoted to the rank of regulator. Same for those who benefit from starting unjustified wars of aggression and keeping them going indefinitely. ..."
    Sep 04, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    While many in the United States firmly believe that the government just isn't working, it is . But it's only working for the powerful and rich elites in the government and the media who have a desire to cling to their oppressive control of others and the money many are willing to allow them to steal.

    The fight has never been between the republicans and the democrats.

    As Americans choose sides, their rights and freedoms are sold to the highest bidder. According to Intellectual Takeout , the fight is between "us" and the deep state ; not those on the right and those on the left. More and more often we are seeing bureaucrats, lobbyists, and elected officials of both parties circle the wagons in an effort to prevent any true reforms of the government. They constantly write laws they exclude themselves from , come up with inventive ways to tax us to our breaking point and destroy the healthcare system . And this is all by design.

    According to Joost Meerloo in his seminal book The Rape of the Mind , the author discusses the psychology of brainwashing that's allowing every American to succumb to tyranny right before their eyes and not only not realize it, but beg for more oppression. "The burning psychological question is whether man will eventually master his institutions so that these will serve him and not rule him," said Meerloo in his discussion of the Deep State or the "administrative machine" published in 1956.

    Meerlo describes the rise of the deep state as:

    " The development of a kind of bureaucratic absolutism is not limited, however, to totalitarian countries. A mild form of professional absolutism is evident in every country in the mediating class of civil servants who bridge the gap between man and his rulers. Such a bureaucracy may be used to help or to harm the citizens it should serve.

    It is important to realize that a peculiar, silent form of battle goes on in all of the countries of the world -- under every form of government -- a battle between the common man and the government apparatus he himself has created. In many places we can see that this governing tool, which was originally meant to serve and assist man, has gradually obtained more power than it was intended to have.

    Governmental techniques are no different from any other psychological strategy; the deadening hold of regimentation can take mental possession of those dedicated to it, if they are not alert. And this is the intrinsic danger of the various agencies that mediate between the common man and his government. It is a tragic aspect of life that man has to place another fallible man between himself and the attainment of his highest ideals."

    The Rape of the Mind

    Meerlo goes on to say that the power of simply being in government will corrupt:

    Being a high civil servant subjects man to a dangerous temptation, simply because he is a part of the ruling apparatus. He finds himself caught in the strategy complex. The magic of becoming an executive and a strategist provokes long-repressed feelings of omnipotence. A strategist feels like a chess player. He wants to manipulate the world by remote control. Now he can keep others waiting, as he was forced to wait himself in his salad days, and thus he can feel himself superior.

    The Rape of the Mind

    But what we are seeing now is not only the corruption of the government. We are witnessing the deep state pulling the strings of every politician and fight to keep their power and money . The members of the Deep State are fighting for not only their jobs and their power but their sense of being. It is an ego boost to control entire populations. But what meaning do they have in life if they were shown that they are in fact dispensable, that they and their departments can be eliminated? In the end, their egos depend upon the maintenance and growth of the power and prestige.

    Over many decades, the very government so many still trust to keep them safe has put in place compulsive orders, red tape, and regulations while expanding exponentially to enforce what it creates and stealing more tax money to cover the rising costs. All the while, its roots drive deeper and deeper into the very government many still fight to protect. Even the politicians who we send to D.C. thinking that they represent us are ensnared in the game. They begin to play by the rules set forth by the Deep State; indeed, our elected officials even become dependent upon the Deep State.

    So the question is, how do we combat the deep state and get our freedom back?

    Future Jim -> stizazz , Sep 3, 2017 10:40 PM

    Excerpted from They Live

    We can deduce with certainty that they exist.

    You know the globalist elite, also known as, the New World Order. Some also refer to them as the shadow government, or the deep state, but such terms are misleading -- for they are global.

    The astute reader will already be saying. "I don't care how good you're argument is, I simply can't imagine any way it could be possible for one cabal to become dominant and to keep that kind of thing a secret.?"

    Even given the most compelling proof, such a response is the rational and correct level of skepticism; therefore, after I present the proof, I will empower you, the reader, with a clear understanding of how one cabal could become dominant and keep itself sufficiently secret.

    The proof is very simple and direct, so we no longer need to rely on the mountain of circumstantial evidence, such as proving the use of mechanisms by which one cabal could become dominant and keep itself sufficiently secret. In fact, the proof is now reversed. We can now use the proof that the cabal exists to prove that if we can merely imagine effective mechanisms for achieving dominance and secrecy, then those mechanisms MUST have been employed to create and protect the cabal -- because the cabal exists.

    Paul Kersey -> Future Jim , Sep 3, 2017 11:14 PM

    Deep State isn't a bunch of lowly government schmuck clerks. Deep State is miti-millionaire goldmanites Gary Cohn, Steve Mnuchin, Jared Kushner, billionaire Rosthschilder Wilbur Ross, and billionaire (or billionaire debtor) Donald Trump. Deep State is the multi-millionaire Clintons, Al Gore, goldmanites Robert Rubin and Hank Paulson. And give a shout out to Paul Ryan, who, with his lobbyist wife, has a net worth:$7.8 Million (Paul Ryan's salary is $175 Thousand). So how do he do it?

    The same way all the other revolving door shithead "Government" multi-millionaires did it. That's what deep state is all about.

    Deep State is the foxes guarding the chicken coops. To Deep State, what's left of the American Class is little more than an ATM.

    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey , Sep 3, 2017 11:23 PM

    Should have read: What's left of the American middle class. Deep State, by the way, is international. Multinationalists own the U.S., western Europe, Australia, etc. , etc.

    Déjà view -> Paul Kersey , Sep 4, 2017 12:33 AM

    Deep State is everywhere...only ignorant Tejas electorate does not have a clue...

    Gov. Greg Abbott flew to Israel Saturday on a plane belonging to Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino owner and megadonor active in Republican national politics.

    A spokesman for the governor confirmed that Abbott flew on Adelson's 737 after Jewish Insider and The Dallas Morning News first reported it Monday.

    Adelson is a top spender in Republican politics known for his fierce support of Israel and his friendship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Abbott met with Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Monday to discuss the Texas-Israeli relationship and reiterate Abbott's opposition to Iran -- a nation whose relationship with Israel has long been tense.

    http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article55442970.html

    It was discussed with the prime minister, as well as other leaders in Israel," Abbott said. " I made very clear to the prime minister that he has no greater ally on the globe than Texas."

    http://tjpnews.com/texas-gov-abbott-talks-business-alliance-with-israel- ...

    JRobby -> Déjà view , Sep 4, 2017 6:15 AM

    Good use of Abbott's time considering the historic flooding in TX.

    bobdog54 -> JRobby , Sep 4, 2017 9:42 AM

    Hey, priorities!

    francis scott f... -> Paul Kersey , Sep 4, 2017 12:45 AM

    Deep State sounds like Orwell's Oceania. Yep, I'll go with that and call it a day.

    lew1024 -> Paul Kersey , Sep 4, 2017 1:06 AM

    Those people may have considerable influence and be able to get favors and insider rates, but they are not Deep State unless they are committing crimes. That is the defining trait. Only after they engage in significant crime can they be trusted.

    Comey, Mueller, Rosen?? assistant atty general, Wray, are actors and criminals, but hands clean criminals.

    MrPalladium -> TeamDepends , Sep 4, 2017 1:18 AM

    The best line from that classic movie "Ideocracy"

    Ubuntuuser -> stizazz , Sep 3, 2017 11:10 PM

    Check out this documentary on Public Banks. We need to do what North Dakota did in 1919 and establish our own state bank and eventually nationalize the Fed. https://youtu.be/P4zCCT5EzGM

    ConnectingTheDots -> Ubuntuuser , Sep 4, 2017 9:45 AM

    Your comment is spot on. I love reading comments when the writer actually "gets it". However, most people think that since all they can remember is the private Federal Reserve issuing our money, then that is the way it is supposed to be.

    Time for people to actually open their minds to other possibilities.

    Rusty Shorts -> Tallest Skil , Sep 3, 2017 10:48 PM

    How Geography Gave the US Power https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-WO-c9xHms P.S. there are no external threats. The fungus is among us

    Blue Steel 309 -> Tallest Skil , Sep 4, 2017 4:14 AM

    Article is spot on in that if you look at people on the left and right trying to escape their programming, they typically agree on a lot of things that nobody in the ((((media))) is allowed to address. In a constitutional republic that is functioning to its purpose, there should be more agreement from the left and right than disagreement. That's how the Democrat and Republican parties originally had legitimacy.

    Future Jim , Sep 3, 2017 10:44 PM

    The Mainstream is Crazy And Extreme

    At some level, everyone realizes that mainstream life is crazy and extreme because it is so artificial and hectic, and because it is so physically and psychologically unhealthy. Everyone also realizes, at some level, that mainstream life is crazy and extreme because everyone is being played.

    They know (at some level) that both parties and most so-called alternatives are all on the same side. They even know that the mainstream believes absurdities and commits atrocities, and yet, the mainstream is even crazier and more extreme than that, because at some level, everyone realizes that they are addicted to it, and that they are doing nothing to fix it and nothing to learn the scope of the problem -- except to occasionally listen to the mainstream media and vote for mainstream politicians ...

    Everyone knows, at some level, that the mainstream is crazy and extreme and that any salvation may thus have to come from outside the mainstream (and the fake alternatives), and thus the craziest and most extreme aspect of the mainstream is that whenever anyone outside the mainstream tries to tell them anything that contradicts the mainstream narrative, they call that person crazy and extreme!

    Instead of embracing reality, individuals in the mainstream prefer to double down on the failed, flawed, fatal policies of the past ... rather than risk looking weird.

    To know that the mainstream is crazy and extreme and that any salvation may have to come from outside the mainstream, and to then fight tooth and nail to ensure that only the mainstream media, the mainstream experts, and the mainstream authorities are allowed to change the mainstream narrative ... well ... that's just batshit crazy.

    ----------

    Please, provide an example of why you think the mainstream is, or is not, crazy or extreme. Thanks.

    Implied Violins -> Future Jim , Sep 4, 2017 12:30 AM

    Yet the craziest, and most extreme, thing to realize about this international cabal running this fucking shitshow is that they so believe in what they are doing that they will sacrifice themselves for their 'goals', believing that their God will 'promote' them in their next life.

    Hence all the shit coming out against the Bushes, Obama, the Clintons etc. THEY DON'T CARE what happens to them as long as their 'God' or 'bloodline' realizes his/their ultimate goal of total control. As such, I would not be surprised if many of these people labeled 'deep state minions' are sacrificed to assuage the masses.

    The thing to look for after the coming 'cataclysms' is if the (((same people))) are atop the banking system, whether it is gold-based or crypto. If that is so, then we have ALL been had. And note: these 'people' can present themselves as saviors, while being (((stealth members))). Beware anyone coming out of this smelling like roses and promising to lead us to a better life...posies only cover the stench of death for a very short time.

    And yes, I am aware of how insane this post may sound, but has anyone looked at the world lately??

    Korea98 , Sep 3, 2017 10:47 PM

    It's easy to control people when you have leverage over them. The spy agencies have every powerful person's email, phone calls, text messages, websearches, and every ounce of dirt on them. They have been in control for some time now.

    WTFUD , Sep 3, 2017 10:48 PM

    How? From the barrel of a gun, naturally!

    Conscious Reviver -> WTFUD , Sep 3, 2017 11:18 PM

    Every president who died in office with the exception of FDR was against the banking cabal. "The issue which has swept down the centuries? and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks. ".

    - Lord Acton

    RocketScience , Sep 3, 2017 10:49 PM

    "They"

    http://www.militaryvotescount.com/2017/05/16/how-to-wake-up-a-young-slee...

    victoriamproletari , Sep 3, 2017 10:50 PM

    Go figure a global cabal running central banks runs a deep state.

    Chupacabra-322 -> esum , Sep 3, 2017 10:56 PM

    The Deep State comprises of the following Criminal Entites as per Kevin Shipp Former CIA Officer Anti-Terrorism Specialist.

    MOSSAD CIA NSA DOJ FBI DHS DOD DOS IRS EPA NOAA NWS

    Deep State

    Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State

    There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    Who rules America? The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess.

    Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"!the mass media!functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Radical Marijuana -> Chupacabra-322 , Sep 4, 2017 12:09 AM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092GA

    CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government

    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/new-cia-agent-whistleblower-risks-all-to-expose-the-shadow-government/

    Kevin Shipp (author of "From The Company Of Shadows") was a decorated CIA officer who refused to look the other way in regard to government criminality and cover-up ... Mr. Shipp presented a shocking and compelling presentation ... which appears to me to be quite correct, and which background makes the idealism various controlled "opposition" groups look seriously out of touch with those realities!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/americas-deep-state-first-policy

    America's "Deep State First" Policy

    That article articulated the PROBLEM:

    "... a chief cause of America's ... problems: the fake-money system ... this fake-money system is the source of funding for the Deep State."

    In that context, I kind of envy those whose beliefs in old-fashioned, impossible ideals allow them to recommend facile "solutions" that are impossible.

    Radical Marijuana REPEATED all the above under:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-01/cia-writing-legislation-us-congress

    Is The CIA Writing Legislation For The U.S. Congress?

    Given the ALREADY almost totally treasonous governments, the situation is rushing toward deeming truth to be treason.

    a Smudge by any... -> Radical Marijuana , Sep 4, 2017 2:26 AM

    Shipp don't pass my smell test. At the end of his lecture his solution is to tell everybody to get on social media? And VOTE? Yeah right. Herding the kids right back into the play pen.

    Oh yeah and don't forget a Constitutionalist grass roots movement. Wow, the guy is a genius.

    VoteSmarts -> a Smudge by any other name , Sep 4, 2017 7:43 AM

    Nevertheless, Facts remain, and coincidence fails to explain them away.

    Chupacabra-322 , Sep 3, 2017 10:58 PM

    To state the obvious; the CIA has deeply humiliated the American people in their attempt to tie the American people to be responsible for the CIA's crimes against humanity across the world.

    The CIA appears to be the world's greatest threat to peace and prosperity. It is the penultimate terrorist organization, being the direct or indirect creator of all other terrorist organizations. It also appears to be the world's penultimate illegal drug smuggler and pusher making all other illegal drug trading possible and instigating the horrors of addiction and suffering around the world.

    If I believed that the CIA was working in any way on behalf of the US government and the American people then it would be sad and shameful indeed. However, it is my belief that the CIA instead was captured long ago, as was the secret military operations and now works for a hidden power that wants to dominate or failing that, destroy humanity.

    It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.

    The Agency is Cancer. There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US. Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    And yet, there is something positive in this. By experiencing and knowing evil, we can choose the path of light or choose to ignore both dark amd light. It is a choice we all must make if we intend to evolve from being animals ruled by this world and its illusions.

    DjangoCat -> Chupacabra-322 , Sep 3, 2017 11:41 PM

    Well said Chubacca. The MSM, the Congress, the Justice Department, the judiciary, regulators at the state and federal levels, electoral oversight, all these have been corrupted. There is no way to adjust this system from within.

    I keep coming back to a withdrawal from and boycott of the whole system as the only faint hope of breaking free. I see crypto and gold as a way out of the fiat swamp, and away from the taxing power of the state. If I have no currency and make no fiat income, what is there to tax? If they want to tax my gains in crypto, must I inform them. What is the moral right here. Pay the corrupted war mongers the money or refuse and boycott them.

    It is non violent and moral to back away. There is no solution within the current system.

    Troy Ounce -> DjangoCat , Sep 4, 2017 2:37 AM

    The majority of Americans do not give a damn. Me thinks that 60-70 % earns their money with "individual or national security", IT, FIRE industries and government derived industries... All above ARE Deep State. Americans are part and parcel of Deep State.

    This screaming "freedom & liberty" is just feel good marketing as nobody gives a flying fuck. OK, some lost commenters on ZH.

    This is....as long the US $ is the reserve currency and Deep State can spend a black budget of several Trillions per year.

    The Chinese might come to the rescue:

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Markets/Commodities/China-sees-new-world-order-w...

    Clock Crasher , Sep 3, 2017 11:25 PM

    So the question is, how do we combat the deep state and get our freedom back?

    No one can answer this question because the world is too complex. When things are so complex it becomes difficult to make heads or tails out of anything we can say the world is in a state of chaos. Too many moving parts. It is possible we never get our freedoms back. The biggest threat to freedom in my estimation is the capture of the justice departments. At the highest levels of power crimes against humanity go completely ignored and unpunished. There is no limit to how much value can be transferred from the People to the Oligarchy. Charles H. Smith has documented this trend clearly and its not reversing, its only accelerating. Neo feudalism is alive and well.

    There is the working class who is continually squeezed to the limit of failure. They are weakened while at the same time the unproductive class is strengthened. Global economies are destroyed and the criminals go not only unpunished but promoted to the rank of regulator. Same for those who benefit from starting unjustified wars of aggression and keeping them going indefinitely.

    The health organizations are tasked with inflicting sickness and disease of the body, the media companies are tasked with inflicting sickness and disease of the mind. You don't have a right to free speech, you have a right to free speech zones. You don't have a right to travel you have the privilege of driving. The education system is tasked with destroying creativity. The Fiat Ponzi Insurgents and double agents are our congressmen, our senators, our presidents. Their supporting cast are made up of the same and they and their lieutenants are life members of the round-table groups.

    Money to them is a means to an end. Unlimited and unchecked power imune from prosecution no matter the crime. To rig the system. Designed to fool people into riding the various waves of prosperity only to gate them into a failing system before they exit quietly with the loot and leave us holding the bag. Where after the failure occurs we fight with each other over the remains. The unholy trinity of glyphosate, fluoride and BPA have left the overwhelming majority of the people in a state of un-dead zombie unable to comprehend the obvious nature of a system that is beyond reform.

    The only way we get our freedoms back is the mass arrest of everyone who is complicit with all of the above and sentenced accordingly to the maximum penalty, life sentences and in some cases death as well as reclaiming as much of the value they transferred to themselves back to our treasury. The chances of this happening are somewhere near zero.

    Another possibility is over reach combined with historic hubris. PCR believes if there is to be change that "it will come from outside the system". Some kind of military defeat from which we can not recover from bringing and end to the war cycle. Perhaps the derivatives markets collapses on itself aided by HFT causing a stock market crash and hyperinflation at the same time. Causing reform to occur.

    I think getting our freedom back is going to center around the inevitably of fiat currency to return to its intrinsic value of zero. It's clear that the petro dollar is on the way out and our military can not protect itself from advanced cyber warfare so any case that could have been made for the dollar having value based on those assumptions is in decline.

    Reverting back to freedom is going to be a rude awakening and going to test mankind to its limits. Most will break under the weight of true freedom. A second renaissance or a second dark age awaits us. Society is bladerunning. The knifes edge is so fine and sharp its inevitable that we will fall to either side, one is life the other death.

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir. ..."
    Aug 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Robert Magill, August 23, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT

    "The country's bourgeois culture] laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance substance abuse and crime.

    You might think that's pretty bland stuff."

    You might think that's bland, but in essence that was the American Myth for most of the 20th century. In the middle nineteen fifties the myth began to unravel when the boomers reached sufficient numbers to be targeted for separation from the mainstream mythology. They constituted a potential very lucrative major market. Enter bubble-gum pop: an entry vehicle for what would follow. Bye bye "Your Hit Parade". Hello Sex, drugs and Rock and Roll.

    Forward flash to 2017 and that pretty bland stuff still looks like pretty bland stuff. So if Myth America was too bland to be true, how do we set about replacing it with something more realistic.

    In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir.

    GummyBar, August 23, 2017 at 10:00 pm GMT

    May I suggest an acronym – rather than the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect, change the order to the Holder-Obama-Lynch Effect. HOLE just seems much more appropriate.

    [Aug 24, 2017] Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. ..."
    Aug 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice, the putative benefits of diversity or any other standard justification. It is this peace- keeping function that explains why the entire establishment, from mega corporations to the military, endorses constitutionally iffy racial discrimination and why questioning diversity's benefits is the most grievous of all PC sins. Stated in cost-benefit terms, denying a few hundred (even a few thousand) high-SAT scoring Asians an Ivy League diploma and instead forcing them attend Penn State is a cheap price to pay for social peace.

    This argument rests on an indisputable reality that nearly all societies contain distinct ethnic or religious groups who must be managed for the sake of collective peace. They typically lack the ability to economically compete, may embrace values that contravene the dominant ethos, or otherwise just refuse to assimilate. What makes management imperative is the possibility of violence either at an individual level, for example, randomly stabbing total strangers, or on a larger scale, riots and insurrections. Thus, in the grand scheme of modern America's potentially explosive race relations, academically accomplished Asians, most of whom are politically quiescent, are expendable, collateral damage in the battle to sustain a shaky status quo.

    Examples of such to-be-managed groups abound. Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes well into the 19 th century or what several European nations currently face with Muslims or today's civil war in Burma with the Karen People. Then there's Turkey's enduring conflict with the Kurds and long before the threat of Islamic terrorism, there were Basque separatists (the ETA ), and the Irish Republican Army . In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe according to the Global Terrorism Database . At a lower levels add the persistently criminal Gypsies who for 500 years have resisted all efforts to assimilate them. This listing is, of course, only a tiny sampling of distinct indigestible violence-prone groups.

    The repertoire of remedies, successful and failed, is also extensive. Our native-American problem has, sad to say, been largely solved by the use of apartheid-like reservations and incapacitating a once war-like people with drugs and alcohol. Elsewhere generous self-rule has done the trick, for example, the Basques in Spain. A particularly effective traditional solution is to promote passivity by encouraging religious acceptance of one's lowly state.

    Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.

    To appreciate the value of affirmative action recall the urban riots of the 1960s. They have almost been forgotten but their sheer number during that decade would shock those grown accustomed to today's relative tranquility. A sampling of cities with major riots includes Rochester, NY, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, Los Angeles, CA, Cleveland, OH, Newark, NJ, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Washington, DC and several smaller cities.

    The damage from these riots! "uprisings" or "rebellions" according to some!was immense. For example, the Detroit riot of 1967 lasted five days and quelling it required the intervention of the Michigan Army National Guard and both the 82 nd and 101 st Airborne divisions. When it finally ended, the death toll was 43, some 7200 were arrested and more than 2000 buildings destroyed. Alas, much of this devastation remains visible today and should be a reminder of what could happen absent a policy of cooling out black anger.

    To correctly understand how racial preferences at elite colleges serves as a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence, recall the quip by comedian Henny Youngman when asked "How's your wife?" He responded with, "Compared to what?" This logic reflects a hard truth: when confronting a sizable, potentially disruptive population unable or unwilling to assimilate, a perfect solution is beyond reach. Choices are only among the lesser of evils and, to repeat, under current conditions, race-driven affirmative action is conceivably the best of the worst. A hard-headed realist would draw a parallel with how big city merchants survive by paying off the police, building and food inspectors, and the Mafia. Racial preferences are just one more item on the cost-of-doing business list–the Danegeld .

    In effect, racial preferences in elite higher education (and beneficiaries includes students, professors and the diversity-managing administrators) separates the top 10% measured in cognitive ability from their more violent down market racial compatriots. While this manufactured caste-like arrangement hardly guarantees racial peace (as the black-on-white crime rate, demonstrates) but it pretty much dampens the possibility of more collective, well-organized related upheavals, the types of disturbances that truly terrify the white establishment. Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership. Violence is now just Chicago or Baltimore-style gang-banger intra-racial mayhem or various lone-wolf criminal attacks on whites.

    Co-optation is a staple in the political management repertoire. The Soviet Union adsorbed what they called the "leading edge" into the Party (anyone exceptionally accomplished, from chess grandmasters or world-class athletes) to widen the divide the dominant elite, i.e., the Party, and hoi polloi. Election systems can be organized to guarantee a modicum of power to a handful of potential disruptors and with this position comes ample material benefits (think Maxine Waters). Monarchies have similarly managed potential strife by bestowing honors and titles on commoners. It is no accident that many radicals are routinely accused of "selling out" by their former colleagues in arms. In most instances the accusation is true, and this is by design.

    To appreciate the advantages of the racial preferences in higher education consider Henny's "compared to what"? part of his quip. Certainly what successfully worked for quelling potential Native American violence, e.g., forced assimilation in "Indian Schools" or confinement in pathology-breeding reservations, is now totally beyond the pale though, to be sure, some inner-cities dominated by public housing are increasingly coming to resemble pathology-inducing Indian reservations. Even less feasible is some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.

    I haven't done the math but I would guess that the entire educational racial spoils system is far more cost effective than creating a garrison state or a DDR-like police state where thousands of black trouble-makers were quickly incarcerated. Perhaps affirmative action in general should be viewed as akin to a nuisance tax, probably less than 5% of our GDP.

    To be sure, affirmative action at elite universities is only one of today's nostrums to quell potential large scale race-related violence. Other tactics include guaranteeing blacks elected offices, even if this requires turning a blind eye toward election fraud, and quickly surrendering to blacks who demand awards and honors on the basis of skin color. Perhaps a generous welfare system could be added to this keep-the-peace list. Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than dealing with widespread 1960s style urban violence.

    This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. Now, given all the billions that have been saved, maybe a totally free ride at lesser schools would be a small price to pay for their dissatisfaction (and they would also be academic stars at such schools). Of course this "Asian only" compensatory scholarship might be illegal under the color blind requirements of 1964 Civil Right Act, but fear not, devious admission officers will figure out a way around the law.

    Carlton Meyer > , Website August 16, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

    This 18 second video clip is a great real world summary:

    Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT

    Interesting take. But risky because :

    1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return to Asia.
    2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
    3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
    4) America becomes like Brazil with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good weather, and attractive women.

    Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer At first, I was surprised that they listened to him.

    After a while, I realized that many negros are stupid enough to think that Hispanics and Asians would like to be in some anti-white alliance with blacks as a senior partner. In reality, they have an even lower opinion of blacks than whites do. US blacks have zero knowledge of the world outside America, so this reality just doesn't register with them.

    Diversity Heretic > , August 16, 2017 at 5:12 am GMT

    John Derbyshire has made similar arguments–racial preferences are the price for social peace. But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian children to buffer black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial lambs" for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.

    There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they are able.

    Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.

    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

    War for Blair Mountain > , August 16, 2017 at 5:26 am GMT

    Robert Weissberg

    Could care less about your smart Asians The smart Asians are enthusiastivally voting Whitey into a racial minority on Nov 3 2020 They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space

    jim jones > , August 16, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer This 18 second video clip is a great real world summary:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik You can just hears someone shouting at the end "Go back to Beijing"

    Wally > , August 16, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

    Once you give in, they will keep demanding more & more.

    There's always a manufactured excuse.

    It's time to say no.

    Bro Methylene > , August 16, 2017 at 5:34 am GMT

    Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are quite distinct.

    This reminds me of the sinister (but largely successful) campaign to conflate San Francisco with "Silicon Valley." The two are separate in every way.

    Priss Factor > , Website August 16, 2017 at 5:55 am GMT

    Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.

    Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.

    They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.

    Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.

    Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.

    Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.

    Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.

    If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.

    But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal PC tards.

    Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate, and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.

    Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then, you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who ran from dirty browns shi ** ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?

    PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of slave ancestry. That's it.

    Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but ' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest.

    Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 6:21 am GMT

    @Bro Methylene

    Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are quite distinct.

    In their original countries they are, but in America they are almost identical in all ways except appearance and diet.

    Plus, since SE Asia has always had influence from both, there is a smooth continuum in the US across all of these groups by the time the 2nd generation rolls around.

    Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space

    Three things wrong with this sentence.

    1) I don't think you know that Native Americans (i.e. Siberians) were here first.
    2) I will bet anything that all 128 of your GGGGG-GPs are not English settlers who were here in 1776. You are probably some 2nd gen Polack or something who still worries that WASPs look down on you.
    3) There is very high variance among whites, and white trashionalists are SOOOO far below the quality threshold of any moderately successful white that they can't claim to speak for all whites. White Trashionalists represent the waste matter that nature wants to purge (which is the process that enables exceptional whites to emerge on the other end of the scale). That is why white women are absolutely doing what nature wants, which is to cut off the White Trashionalists from reproduction. If you care about the white race, you should be glad that white women want nothing to do with you and allow you to complete you wastebasket role.

    There.

    helena > , August 16, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer That's hilarious. Anti-ma should replace their flags with placards saying, "Hey, Hey, this is Library!" at all counter-anti-fa demos.

    Priss Factor > , Website August 16, 2017 at 6:36 am GMT

    Will this really keep the peace?

    Obama was one of the beneficiaries of AA along with his wife and their kids. Did that prevent Baltimore and Chicago and etc from blowing up?

    In a way, AA and Civil Rights made black communities more volatile. When blacks were more stringently segregated, even smart and sensible blacks lived among blacks and played some kind of 'role model'. They ran businesses and kept in close contact with black folks.

    It's like white communities in small towns used to be much better when the George Baileys stayed in them or returned to them and ran things.

    But as more and more George Bailies left for the big cities, small towns had fewer top notch role models and leaders and enterprisers. Also, the filth of pop culture and youth degeneracy via TV corrupted the dummies. And then, when globalism took away the industries, there were just people on opioids. At least old timers grew up with family and church. The new generation grew up on Idiocracy.

    Anyway, AA will just taken more black talent from black community and mix them with whites, Asians, and etc. Will some of these blacks use their power and privilege to incite black mobs to violence? Some do go radical. But most will just get their goodies and forget the underclass except in some symbolic way. It's like Obama didn't do crap as 'community organizer'. He just stuck close to rich Jews in Hyde Park, and as president, he was serving globo-wars, Wall Street, and homos.
    When he finally threw a bone at the blacks in his second term, it lit cities on fire.

    Did the black underclass change for the better because they saw Obama as president? No. If anything, it just made them bolder as flashmobs. The way blacks saw it, a bunch of fa ** ogty wussy white people voted for a black guy created by a black man sexually conquering a white woman. They felt contempt for cucky whites, especially as rap culture and sports feature blacks as master race lording over whites. To most underclass blacks, the only culture they know is sports and rap and junk they see on TV. And they are told blacks are magical, sacred, badass, and cool. And whites are either 'evil' if they have any pride or cucky-wucky wussy if they are PC.

    The Murrayian Coming-Apart of whites took place already with blacks before. And more AA that takes in smarter blacks will NOT make things better for black underclass. And MORE blacks in elite colleges will just lead to MORE anger issues, esp as they cannot keep up with other students.

    Even so, I can understand the logic of trying to win over black cream of crop. Maybe if they are treated nice and feel 'included', they won't become rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton and act more like Obama. Obama's race-baiting with Ferguson was bad but could have been worse with someone like Sharpton.

    The Power can try to control a people in two ways. Crush everyone OR give carrots to comprador elites so that sticks can be used on masses. Clinton did this. He brought over black elites, and they worked with him to lock up record number of Negroes to make cities safer. As Clinton was surrounded by Negroes and was called 'first black president' by Toni Morrison, many blacks didn't realize that he was really working to lock up lots of black thugs and restore order.

    Smart overlords play divide-and-conquer by offering carrots to collaborator elites and using sticks on masses.
    British Imperialists did that. Gandhi would likely have collaborated with Brits if not for the fact that he was called a 'wog' in South Africa and kicked off a train. Suddenly, he found himself as ONE with the poor and powerless 'wogs' in the station. He was made equal with his own kind.

    Consider Jews in the 30s and even during WWII. Many Western European Jews became rich and privileged and felt special and put on airs. Many felt closer to gentile elites and felt contempt and disdain for many 'dirty' and 'low' Eastern European Jews. If Hitler had been cleverer and offered carrots to rich Jews, there's a good chance that many of them would have collaborated and worked with the Power to suppress or control lower Jews, esp. of Eastern European background.

    But Hitler didn't class-discriminate among Jews. He went after ALL of them. Richest Jew, poorest Jew, it didn't matter. So, even many rich Jews were left destitute if not dead after WWII. And this wakened them up. They once had so much, but they found themselves with NOTHING. And as they made their way to Palestine with poor Eastern European Jewish survivors, they felt a strong sense of ethnic identity. Oppression and Tragedy were the great equalizer. Having lost everything, they found what it really means to be Jewish. WWII and Holocaust had a great traumatic equalizing effect on Jews, something they never forgot since the war, which is why very rich Jews try to do much for even poor Jews in Israel and which is why secular Jews feel a bond with funny-dressed Jewish of religious sects.

    For this reason, it would be great for white identity if the New Power were to attack ALL whites and dispossess all of them. Suppose globalism went after not only Deplorables but Clintons, Bushes, Kaineses, Kerrys, Kennedys, and etc. Suppose all of them were dispossessed and humiliated and called 'honkers'. Then, like Gandhi at the train station, they would regain their white identity and identify with white hoi polloi who've lost so much to globalism. They would become leaders of white folks.
    But as long as carrots are offered to the white elites, they go with Glob and dump on whites. They join with the GLOB to use sticks on white folks like in Charlottesville where sticks were literally used against patriots who were also demeaned as 'neo-nazis' when most of them weren't.

    So, I'm wishing Ivy Leagues will have total NO WHITEY POLICY. It is when the whites elites feel rejected and humiliated by the Glob that they will return to the masses.

    Consider current Vietnam. Because Glob offers them bribes and goodies, these Viet-cuck elites are selling their nation to the Glob and even allowing homo 'pride' parades.

    White Genocide that attacks ALL whites will have a unifying effect on white elites and white masses. It is when gentiles targeted ALL Jews that all Jews, rich and poor, felt as one.

    But the Glob is sneaky. Instead of going for White Genocide that targets top, middle, and bottom, it goes for White Democide while forgoing white aristocide. So, white elites or neo-aristocrats are rewarded with lots of goodies IF they go along like the Romneys, Clintons, Kaines, Bidens, and all those quisling weasels.

    jilles dykstra > , August 16, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT

    " Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs. "

    I read an article, making a learned impression, that on average USA blacks have a lower IQ.
    I do suppose that IQ has a cultural component, nevertheless, those in western cultures with a lower IQ can be expected to have less economic success.
    A black woman who did seem to understand all this was quoted in the article as that 'blacks should be compensated for this lower IQ'.
    One can discuss this morally endless, but even if the principle was accepted, how is it executed, and where is the end ?
    For example, people with less than average length are also less successful, are we going to compensate them too ?

    Simon in London > , August 16, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT

    "economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs"

    It only stalled when the Great Society and the uplift programs started. According to The Bell Curve there was basically an instant collapse when LBJ started to wreaking his havoc. Go back to pre-1964 norms and no late-60s riots.

    Kyle McKenna > , August 16, 2017 at 7:45 am GMT

    We have sacrificed smart white students for three generations to keep the hebraic component around 30% at our highest-ranked colleges and universities, and no one (except the jewish Ron Unz himself) made so much as a peep. And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far more discrimination than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting it.

    I hope this doesn't need linking here, but wth

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

    Realist > , August 16, 2017 at 8:04 am GMT

    "Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace"

    It is the sacrificing of smart white students that is the problem. Of all the races whites, on average are more innovative and ambitious.

    Tom Welsh > , August 16, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT

    "The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace "

    In simpler language, appeasement.

    Tom Welsh > , August 16, 2017 at 9:16 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain "They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space "

    Your statement would be perfectly correct if it read, "White people of European origin don't belong on Native American Living and Breeding Space "

    Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall to complain that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more closely than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent.

    Honestly, what is the world coming to when you spend centuries and millions of bullets, bottles of whisky and plague-ridden blankets getting rid of tens of millions of people so you can steal their land – and then more people like you come along and want to settle peaceably alongside you? That's downright un-American.

    Maybe you'd be more comfortable if the Asian immigrants behaved more like the European settlers – with fire, sword, malnutrition and pestilence.

    Tom Welsh > , August 16, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

    @Diversity Heretic The Kipling quote is stirring and thought-provoking (like most Kipling quotes). But it is not entirely correct.

    Consider the kings of France in the 10th century, who were confronted by the apparently insoluble problem of periodic attacks by bands of vicious, warlike, and apparently irresistible Vikings. One king had the bright idea of buying the Northmen off by granting them a very large piece of land in the West of France – right where the invading ships used to start up the Seine towards Paris.

    The Northmen settled there, became known as Normans, and held Normandy for the rest of the Middle Ages – in the process absolutely preventing any further attacks eastward towards Paris. The dukes of Normandy held it as a fief from the king, and thus did homage to him as his feudal subordinates.

    They did conquer England, Sicily, and a few other places subsequently – but the key fact is that they left the tiny, feeble kingdom of France alone.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans#Settling_of_Normandy

    Wizard of Oz > , August 16, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT

    Ratioal cost benefit arguments could be applied much more widely to the benefit of America and other First World countries. If otherwise illegal drugs were legalised, whether to be prescribed by doctors or not, it would save enormous amounts of money on law enforcement and, subject to what I proffer next, incarceration.

    What is the downside? The advocates of Prohibition weren't wrong about the connection of alcohol and lower productivity. That was then. If, say, 10 per cent of the population were now disqualified from the workforce what would it matter. The potential STEM wizards amongst them (not many) would mostly be nurtured so that it was only the underclass which life in a daze. And a law which made it an offence, effectively one for which the penalty was to be locked up or otherwise deprived of freedom to be a nuisance, to render oneself unfit to perform the expected duties of citizenship would have collateral benefits in locking up the right underclass males.

    Logan > , August 16, 2017 at 9:45 am GMT

    @Bro Methylene "Orientals," east Asians, or just Asians in American parlance are indeed quite different from south Asians, called "Asians" in the UK,. These are quite different groups.

    But the groups of east and south Asians include widely differing peoples. A Korean doesn't have much in common with a Malay, nor a Pathan with a Tamil. Probably not much more than either has in common with the other group or with white Americans.

    That they "all look alike" to use does not really mean the do, it just means we aren't used to them.

    Was recently watching an interesting Chinese movie and had enormous difficulty keeping the characters straight, because they did indeed all look alike to me. I wonder if Chinese people in China have similar trouble watching old American movies.

    Colleen Pater > , August 16, 2017 at 10:19 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer yeah and hispanics are natural conservatives. dont be a cuck once that slant is here long enough he will tumble to the game and get on the anti white bandwagon. and sure asians will eventually out jew the jews just what we need another overlord, only this one a huge percentage or world pop. .

    Colleen Pater > , August 16, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

    You know weisberg youre not fooling anyone here peddle that cuck crap elsewhere affirmative action leads to nothing but more affirmative action at this point everyone but white males gets it, and you my jew friend know this so selling it to sucker cucks as the cost of doing business is just more jew shenanigans. There is a much better solution to the problem peoples deport them back where they belong israel africa asia central america.

    joeshittheragman > , Website August 16, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT

    This is all about nothing now. The only thing White people have to learn anymore is controlled breathing, good position, taking up trigger slack, letting the round go at exactly the right moment – one round, one hit.

    Jake > , August 16, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

    When your child tosses a tantrum and tears up his bedroom, and you tell him his mean-spirited, selfish cousins caused it and then you reward him with a trip to Disneyland and extra allowance: then you guarantee more and worse tantrums.

    That is what America and America's Liberals, the Elites, have done with blacks and violence.

    Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT

    ha, there is another group that is preying on the asian group and it is omitted.

    TG > , August 16, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT

    A very interesting post. Really a unique perspective – who cares if it's not fair, if it is necessary to keep the peace?

    I do however disagree with one of your points. " whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs."

    I think you have missed the main event. Over the last half-century the elites of this nation have waged ruthless economic warfare AGAINST poor blacks in this country, to an extent that far dwarfs the benefits of affirmative action (for a typically small number of already privileged blacks).

    Up through the 1960′s, blacks were starting to do not so bad. Yes they were in a lot of menial jobs, but many of these were unionized and the pay was pretty good. I mean, if nobody else wants to sweep your floors, and the only guy willing to do it i s black, well, he can ask for a decent deal.

    Then our elites fired black workers en masse, replacing them with Mexican immigrants and outsourcing to low-wage countries. Blacks have had their legs cut off with a chainsaw, and the benefits of affirmative action (which nowadays mostly go to Mexicans etc.!) little more than a bandaid.

    And before we are too hard on blacks, let me note that whites are also being swept up in the poverty of neoliberal globalization, and they too are starting to show social pathology.

    Because in terms of keeping the social peace, there is one fundamental truth more important than all others: there must be some measure of broadly shared prosperity. Without it, even ethnically homogeneous and smart and hard working people like the Japanese or Chinese will tear themselves apart.

    Anonymouse > , August 16, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT

    Not New York. Wife & I were living there then and Mayor Lindsay went to Harlem and NYC negroes did not riot after MLK Jr was assassinated.

    Jake > , August 16, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

    Note that there is not a word in this article about what this does to the white working class and how it can be given something in return for allowing Elites to bribe blacks with trillions and trillions of dollars in goodies. Nor is there is there any indication that this process eventually will explode, with too many blacks demanding so much it cannot be paid.

    George Weinbaum > , August 16, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

    Was this written tongue in cheek?
    Affirmative action will never end. The bribes will never end. The US made a mistake in the 1960s. We should have contained the riots then let the people in those areas sleep in the burned out rubble. Instead through poverty programs we rewarded bad black behavior.
    By filling the Ivy League with blacks we create a new class of Cornell West's for white people to listen to. We enhance the "ethos" of these people.
    Eventually, certainly in no more than 40 years, we will run out of sacrifices. What then when whites constitute only 40% of the American population? Look at South Africa today.
    We have black college graduates with IQs in the 80s! They want to be listened to. After all, they're college graduates.
    I do not believe you have found "a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence".
    You mix in this "top 10%" and they get greater acceptance by whites who are turned left in college.

    dearieme > , August 16, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT

    "The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace "

    IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
    "We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
    That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say: –
    "Though we know we should defeat you,
    we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say: –

    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!"

    anonymous > , Disclaimer August 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

    whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.

    The reality of this is become a huge stumbling block. In fact this group has actually been mostly regressing into violence and stupidity, going their own separate way as exemplified by their anti-social music which celebrates values repugnant to the majority. Look at the absurd level of shootings in cities like Chicago. That's not changing anytime soon. They're by far overrepresented in Special Ed, juvenile delinquency, prisons and all other indicators of dysfunction. Their talented tenth isn't very impressive as compared to whites or Asians. Their entire middle class is mostly an artificial creation of affirmative action. The point is that they can only be promoted so far based on their capability. The cost of the subsidy gets greater every year and at some point it'll become too heavy a burden and then it'll be crunch time. After the insanity of the Cultural Revolution the Chinese had to come to their senses. It's time to curtail our own version of it.

    Truth > , August 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm GMT

    It really is terrible and unfair that an Asian needs to score so much higher than you white oppressors to get into the Ivy league

    A Princeton study found that students who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to private colleges, a difference some have called "the Asian tax."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/affirmative-action-battle-has-a-new-focus-asian-americans.html

    You All Look Like Ants > , August 16, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

    I think this is brilliant satire.
    It is actually an argument that is logically sound. Doesn't mean that it's good or sensible or even workable over the long run.
    It's just logically sound. It holds together if one accepts the not-crazy parts its made out of.
    I don't believe it's meant to be taken literally, because both the beneficiaries and those who get screwed will grow in their resentment and the system would melt down.
    New fields with the word "studies' in them would get added and everyone would know – deep down – why that is so, and Asians would continue to dominate the hard sciences, math and engineering.
    Still, as satire, it's so close to the bone that it works beautifully.

    helena > , August 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

    @Tom Welsh "Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall to complain that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more closely than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent."

    Agree. The country should be returned to pre-1700 conditions and given over to anyone who wants it.

    Rich > , August 16, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

    @Anonymouse I guess one man's riot is another man's peaceful night. There was a bit of rioting in Brooklyn that night, businesses burned and looted, and a handful of businesses were looted in Harlem. There was a very heavy police presence with Mayor Lindsey that night and blacks were still very segregated in 1968, so I'd guess it was more that show of force that prevented the kind of riots we'd seen earlier and in other cities at that time. Still, there was looting and burning, so New York's blacks don't get off the hook. As a personal note. my older brother and his friends were attacked by a roving band of blacks that night in Queens, but managed to chase them out of our neighborhood.

    Thorfinnsson > , August 16, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

    The costs of BRA may be lower than the costs of 1960s urban riots, though an accurate accounting would be difficult as many costs are not easily tabulated.

    Consider, for instance, the costs of excluding higher performing whites and Asians from elite universities. Does this result in permanently lower salaries from them as a result of greater difficulty in joining an elite career track?

    What costs do affirmative action impose upon corporations, especially those with offices in metropolitan areas with a lot of blacks? FedEx is famously centralized in Memphis. What's the cost to me as a shipper in having to deal with sluggish black customer service personnel?

    The blacks are 15% of the population, so I doubt "garrison state" costs would be terribly high. I am certain that segregation was cheaper than BRA is. The costs of segregation were overlooking some black talent (negligible) and duplication of certain facilities (I suspect this cost is lower than the cost of white flight).

    War for Blair Mountain > , August 16, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

    How did America ever manage to survive when there hardly any Chinese Hindus..Sihks .Koreans in OUR America?

    Answer:Very well thank you!!!! ..America 1969=90 percent Native Born White American .places two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon 10 more after this Who the F would be opposed to this?

    Answer:Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" Hindu "Americans" .Sihk "Americans" .Pakistani "Americans"

    Jason Liu > , August 16, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

    There would still be racial peace if affirmative action was abolished. They'll bitch for a while, but they'll get used it and the dust will settle.

    Side note: Affirmation action also disproportionately helps white women into college, and they're the largest group fueling radical leftist identity politics/feminism on campus. In other words, affirmative action is a large contributor to SJWism, the media-academia complex, and the resulting current political climate.

    anarchyst > , August 16, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra The statement "blacks should be compensated for this lower IQ" is no different than the descendents of the so-called jewish "holocaust ™" being compensated in perpetuity by the German government. Now, there are calls by the jewish "holocaust ™" lobby to extend the financial compensation to children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these so-called "holocaust ™ survivors, stating the fake concept of "holocaust ™" transference" just another "holocaust ™" scam
    Same thing.

    bjondo > , August 16, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

    Smart means what?

    More Monsanto, DuPont cancers and degraded foods.
    New diseases from medical, biological, genetic research
    More spying and censorship and stealing by Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, high IQ thieves.
    All jobs overseas, domestic unemployment, endless wars, by the best and brightest.
    Toxic pollution, mental pollution that dwarfs the back yard pollution of tires and old refrigs by "low IQ deplorables (white and black and brown".
    Degraded, degrading entertainment and fake news to match fake histories by Phds.
    Tech devices that are "wonderful" but life is actually better more meaningful without.

    Poupon Marx > , August 16, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

    [Blacks] "whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs." No, Professor, it is Trillions spend over the last 50 years and millions before that. Countless Whites and other non-Negroid people have had to step aside in education, military, government, private industry, to let the lesser person advance and leap frog the accepted virtue-merit path to advancement. AND IT STILL IS NOT ENOUGN FOR BLECKS.

    The obvious solution is to separate into uni-racial/ethnic states. For Whites, this would include a separate autocephalous, independent state of Caucasians, Asians, and Hindu. This is the Proto-IndoEuropean Family, related by genes and languages.

    jim jones > , August 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

    @Logan I have the same trouble with Korean movies, all the women look the same:

    Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

    @Thomm Interesting take. But risky because :

    1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return to Asia.
    2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
    3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
    4) America becomes like Brazil...with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good weather, and attractive women. Could agree 1 and 2.

    2-3 millions Top caliber White males moving to Asia?

    haha, Top caliber White males (American) will stay in America, screw the rest WN, devour all the resources available, not only in America, but from the rest of the world.

    This is a real White so-called Top caliber White males enjoying in Philippines.

    You can see the typical features of White in Asia

    1. Bald
    2. Obese
    3. Lanky
    4. Gold watch
    5. Cargo pants
    6. Flip flop

    You can't get away those Top caliber White males features in Asia.

    Greg Bacon > , Website August 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    I'm guessing the author would be screaming at the top of his lungs if it was Jewish students being told to go to some state university–instead of Harvard–since we have to make room for blacks.

    BTW, your comment "..Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes" needs clarification. Maybe the tribes got violent because of the 400 treaties Uncle Sam made with the various tribes, he honored NONE

    Abelard Lindsey > , August 16, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT

    I would call it the Diversity Tax.

    üeljang > , August 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

    @jim jones A great part of that is because, well, let's say that the place where those actresses have got their work done is the same.

    Whites have much greater natural variations in hair and eye color, but skin color among East Asian individuals is more naturally variable (especially when the effect of tanning is considered), and their facial features and somatotypes are also more diverse in my opinion. For example, East Asian populations contain some individuals who have what the Japanese call futae mabuta "double eyelids" and some individuals who have what they call hitoe mabuta "single eyelids," whereas White populations contain only individuals who have "double eyelids." Whether such increased physical variability is positive or negative probably depends on one's viewpoint; in the case of that eyelid polymorphism, the variant that is found in Asians but not in Whites is generally considered neutral or even positive when it occurs in male individuals, but negative when it occurs in female individuals, so plastic surgeons must be overflowing with gratitude for the single eyelid gene.

    Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT

    @Thorfinnsson The separate school facilities meant a major saving in the costs of school police and security guards, resource teachers, counselors buses and bus drivers, and layers and layers of administrators trying to administer the mess.

    Separate schools were a lot cheaper in that the black teachers kept the lid on the violence with physical punishment and the White teachers and students had a civilized environment.

    The old sunshine laws kept blacks out of White neighborhoods after dark which greatly reduced black on White crime. In the north, informal neighborhood watches kept black on White crime to a minimum until block by block the blacks conquered the cities.

    George Wallace said segregation now, segregation forever. I say sterilization now, problem solved in 80 years.

    Asians??? I went to college with the White WASP American young men who were recruited and went to work in Mountain View and Cupertino and the rest of Santa Clara county and invented Silicon Valley.

    Not one was Asian or even Jewish. And they invented it and their sons couldn't even get into Stanford because their sons are White American men.

    I think the worst thing about affirmative action is that government jobs are about the only well paid secure jobs that still stick to the 40 hour work week. Government is the largest employer in the country. And those jobs are "no Whites need apply".

    BTW I read the Protocols years before the Internet. I had to make an appointment to go into a locked section of a research library. I had to show ID. It was brought to me and I had to sit where I could be seen to read it. I had to sign an agreement that I would not copy anything from the protocols.

    And there it was, the fourth protocol.
    "We shall see to it brothers, that we shall see to it that they appoint only the incompetent and unfit to their government positions. And thus we shall conquer them from within"

    Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

    @Thomm Actually, Europeans arrived 20, to 30,000 years ago from Europe and were wiped out by the later arriving Asians.

    Beckow > , August 16, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

    @Thomm Only 4) is remotely possible. And Brazilian women are not that attractive, they are nice looking on postcards, but quite dumpy and weird-looking in person. But that is a matter of personal taste.

    The reason 1,2,3 are nonsensical is that geography and resources matter. Asia simply doesn't have them, it is not anywhere as attractive to live in as North America or Europe and never will be. It goes beyond geographic resources, everything from architecture, infrastructure, culture is simply worse in Asia and it would take hundreds of years to change that.

    So why the constant 'go to Asia' or 'Asia is the future'? It might be a temporary escape for many desperate, self-hating, white Westerners, a place to safely worship as they give up on it all. Or it could be the endless family links with the Asian women. But that misreads that most of the Asian families are way to clear-headed to exchange what the are trying to escape for the nihilistic dreams of their white partners. They are the least likely to go to Asia, they know it instinctively, they know what they have been trying to escape.

    It is possible that the West is on its last legs, and many places are probably gone for good. But Asia is not going to step up and replace it. It is actually much worse that that – we are heading for a dramatic downturn and a loss of comfort and civilization. Thank you Baby Boomers – you are the true end-of-liners of history.

    nickels > , August 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT

    Except that, of course, as with all forms of appeasement, it isn't working .

    Alec Leamas (hard at work) > , August 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm GMT

    Bright and talented white kids from non-elite families stuck between the Scylla and Charybdis of Cram-Schooled Study-Asians with no seeming limit to their tolerance for tedium and 90 IQ entitled blacks is 2017 in a nutshell.

    Realist > , August 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

    Weissberg is a nutless quisling. The proper way to handle blackmail is to stop it in it's tracks.

    Peaceful demonstrations are fine, property destroying riots should be stopped by any means necessary. Blacks would soon stop their dumb shit actions

    Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    @George Weinbaum That there Cornell West is a learned fellow. I bet his vocabulary is bigger than that of GWB and DJT – combined.

    Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT

    @Truth That study was slanted.

    Jeff77450 > , August 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm GMT

    Said in all seriousness: I genuinely feel sorry for blacks but not because of slavery & Jim Crow. Those were great evils but every group has gone through that. No, I feel sorry for them because their average IQ of 85–yes, it is–combined with their crass thug culture, which emphasizes & rewards all the wrong things, is going to keep them mired in dysfunction for decades to come. Men like Thomas Sowell & Walter Williams have all the information that blacks need to turn themselves around but they won't listen, I guess because the message is take responsibility for yourselves and your families and refuse to accept charity in all its different forms to include AA.

    "Thomas Sowell vs Affirmative Action's failures" (~13 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agkye3vlG0Q

    MEFOBILLS > , Website August 16, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT

    From the author:

    some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.

    Why not pay people to leave? A law change would convert the money supply from bank money to sovereign money.

    AMI's HR2990 would convert the money supply overnight, and nobody would be the wiser.

    At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks that don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country of their choice. This public money can be formed as debt free, and could also be directed such that it can only buy American goods. In other words, it can be forced to channel, to then stimulate the American economy.

    In this way, the future works, to then get rid of disruptive future elements.

    It always boils down to the money system. There is plenty of economic surplus to then fund the removal of indigestible elements.

    People automatically assume that the money supply must be private bank credit, as that is the way it always has been. NO IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.

    http://www.sovereignmoney.eu

    Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT

    @Alden source please, that I would like to read. something new.

    Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 5:48 pm GMT

    @helena If Whites leave America and go back to their origin, no one, I repeat, NO ONE would complain about that. They'd be singing "God Riddance" song all along.

    No one wants to migrate to Ukraine, a white country.
    No one wants to migrate to Hungary, a white country.
    No one wants to migrate to Austria, a white country.

    Everyone wants to migrate to the place where there's an over-bloated sense of job availability. In this case, America offers an ample amount of opportunity.

    Let's wait and see how universities in CA populated with merit-based Asian Americans overrule all universities in the US anytime soon.

    Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in the world.

    No state can compete against CA. You wonder why?

    segundo > , August 16, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

    Are you utterly oblivious to the fact that well over 95% of the blacks getting AAed into universities are then being trained/indoctrinated into being future disruptive activists? Activists with credentials, more money and connections. Entirely counterproductive and much of it on the taxpayers' dime. If there is a solution, AA isn't it.

    Diversity Heretic > , August 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

    @Rdm Can I count you in on the Calexit movement–followed by the purge of whites? Freed from the burden of those miserable European-origin Americans, the Asian-Negro-Mestizo marvel will be a shining light to the rest of the world!

    David > , August 16, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

    I waited to make this comment until the serious thinkers had been here. Did anyone notice the dame in the picture is giving us the finger? I did a little experiment to see if my hand could assume that position inadvertently and it couldn't. It aptly illustrates the article, either way.

    Alec Leamas (hard at work) > , August 16, 2017 at 7:20 pm GMT

    @Rdm

    Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in the world.

    No state can compete against CA. You wonder why?

    If you took the land mass of CA and imposed it on the U.S. East Coast between Boston and South Carolina, I don't think it'd be a problem to surpass California in any Top 50 University competition.

    I'm not sure what your point is here.

    The Realist > , Website August 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT

    Here's a simpler and more effective solution-KILL ALL NIGGERS NOW. See, not so difficult, was it? Consider it a Phoenix Program for the American Problem. Actually, here's another idea-KILL ALL LIBERALS NOW. That way, good conservative people of different races, sexes, etc., can be saved from the otherwise necessary carnage. Remember, gun control is being able to hit your target.

    Mis(ter)Anthrope > , August 16, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT

    The affirmative action game may well serve the interests of the cognitive elite whites, but it has been a disaster for the rest of white America. I have a better solution.

    Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.

    Send all Asians and other foreigners who not already citizens back to their homelands. End all immigration except very special cases like the whites being slaughtered in South Africa or the spouse of a white American male citizen.

    Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT

    @Rdm I am not referring to guys like in the picture.

    I am referring to the very topmost career stars, moving to Asia for the expat life. Some of that is happening, and it could accelerate. Only 2-3 million are needed.

    Wally > , Website August 16, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

    @Kyle McKenna " And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far more discrimination than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting it. "

    And that's the function of the fraudulent, impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers'.

    [MORE]

    "The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and re-organization of global society requires two essential steps: firstly, the destruction of the old established order, secondly, design and imposition of the new order. The first stage requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy ethical barriers and social definitions, only then can the destroyed old system elements be replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.

    The first task of our world revolution is Destruction. All social strata and social formations created by traditional society must be annihilated, individual men and women must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct, traditional social norms must only be viewed as a disease to be eradicated, the ruling dictum of the new order is; nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished, everything that was, must be gone."

    from: 'The Spirit Of Militarism', by Nahum Goldmann
    Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress

    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

    @Rdm Almost all white people would rather migrate to Austria, Hungary, and the Ukraine than the following citadels of civilization:

    Angola
    Botswana
    Burundi
    Cameroon
    Central African Republic
    Djibouti
    Ethiopia
    Equatorial Guinea
    Eritrea
    Gabon
    Ghana
    Kenya
    Niger
    Nigeria
    South Africa
    Sudan
    Swaziland
    Tanzania
    Uganda
    Zambia

    You know what? I bet most blacks would as well.

    Mis(ter)Anthrope > , August 16, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT

    @Liberty Mike I don't know if anyone else got it, but that is pretty damn funny.

    Wally > , August 16, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT

    @Rdm - 45% of California is Federal land.

    - Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable & dumb illegal immigrants.

    - Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax revenues):

    aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders, bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg

    - Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples Republic of California'.

    - And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.

    CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.

    Calexit? Please, pretty please.

    Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain You just want intra-white socialism so you can mooch off of productive whites.

    Macumazahn > , August 16, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT

    It's particularly unfortunate that Asians, who can hardly be blamed for the plight of America's Blacks, are the ones from whom the "affirmative action" #groidgeld is extracted.

    Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:18 pm GMT

    @Diversity Heretic My impression and overall experience from interacting with White Americans is good in general. I have a very distinct view on both White Americans and Europeans. I'd come back later.

    I don't recommend purging of Whites in America. Neither do I prohibit immigration of all people. But I do wish "legal" immigration from all parts of the world to this land. But I also understand why people are fed up with White America.

    There is a clear distinction between Europeans and White Americans. White Americans born and bred here are usually an admixture of many European origins. They usually hide their Eastern European origin and fervently claim German, French, English whenever possible -- basically those countries that used to be colonial masters in the past.

    White Americans are generally daring, optimistic and very open-minded. Usually when you bump into any White Americans born and bred here, you can sense their genuine hospitality.
    Europeans, usually fresh White immigrants in this land, tend to carry over their old mentality with a bit of self-righteous attitude to patronize and condescend Americans on the ground that this is a young country.

    My former boss was Swiss origin, born in England, and migrated to America. If there's an opportunity cost, he'd regale his English origin. If there's a Swiss opportunity, he'd talk about his ancestry. He'd bash loud, crazy Americans while extoling his European majesty. He became a naturalized American last year for tax purposes so that his American wife can inherit if he kicks the bucket.

    Bottom line is, every immigrant to the US, in my honest opinion, is very innocent and genuinely hard working. They have a clear idea of how they like to achieve their dreams here and would like to work hard. It seems after staying here for a while, they all change their true selves to fit into the existing societal structure, i.e., Chris Hemsworth, an Australian purposely trained to speak American English in Red Dawn, can yell "This is our home" while 4th generation Asian Americans will be forced to speak broken English. This is how dreams are shaped in America.

    Coming back to purge of Whites, I only wish those self-righteous obese, bald, bottom of the barrel, living on the alms Whites, proclaiming their White skin, will go back to their origin and do something about a coming flood of Muslim in their ancestral country if they're so worried about their heritage.

    Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT

    @Alec Leamas (hard at work) My point is, universities in CA are doing well commensurate with hard working students without AA action.

    Saxon > , August 16, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

    @Thomm No, he just wants the street-defecating hangers-on like you to go back and show how awesome you claim you are in your own country by making a success of it rather than milking all of the entitlements and affirmative action and other programs of literal racial advantage given to you by virtue of setting foot in someone else's country.

    Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT

    @Wally - 45% of California is Federal land.

    - Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable & dumb illegal immigrants.

    - Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax revenues):

    aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders, bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg

    - Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples Republic of California'.

    - And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.

    CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.

    Calexit? Please, pretty please. So you're talking about Calexit in AA action?

    Let us play along.

    If CA is existing solely due to Fed Alms, I can agree it's the tip of the iceberg. But we're talking about Universities, their performance and how AA is affecting well qualified students.

    Following on your arguments,

    UC Berkeley receives $373 Millions (Federal Sponsorship) in 2016.
    Harvard University, on the other hand, receives $656 millions (Federal sponsorship) in 2012.

    I'm talking about how Universities climb up in World ranking, based upon their innovations, productivity, research output, etc etc etc. Which to me, is reflective of what kind of students are admitted into the programs. That's my point.

    If you want to talk about Calexit, you'd better go and refresh your reading comprehension ability.

    Stan d Mute > , August 16, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT

    The thing that is forgotten is that white Americans DO NOT need the Africans in any way whatsoever. There is NOTHING in Detroit that we want – we abandoned it deliberately and have no interest in ever returning.

    On the other hand, what do the Africans need from us?

    Food. We own and operate all food production.
    Medicine. Ditto.
    Clean water. Look at Flint.
    Sanitation services. Look at anywhere in Africa.
    Order.

    To put a stop to African behavior from Africans is an idiot's dream. They will never stop being what they are. They simply cannot. So if we cannot expel them, we must control them. When they act up, we cut off their food, medicine, water, and sewer services. Build fences around Detroit and Flint. Siege. After a month or two of the Ethiopian Diet, the Africans in Detroit will be much more compliant.

    War for Blair Mountain > , August 16, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT

    @Thomm You just want intra-white socialism so you can mooch off of productive whites. Thomm=the girly boy blatherings of a White Libertarian Cuck

    The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" .Hindu "Americans" Sihk "Americans" and Iranian "Americans"?

    Answer:0 . Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!

    Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers go read Denis Kearney's Rebel Rousing speeches google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the passage of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act

    The peril of appeasement > , August 16, 2017 at 9:40 pm GMT

    As some have pointed out, the trouble with appeasement is, it never ends. Those who are used to the handouts will always want more. There's the saying parents tend to strengthen the strong and weaken the weak, that's what paternalistic policies like affirmative action and welfare do to a society. It creates a cycle of dependency.

    Those who think multiculturalism coupled with identity politics is a good idea need to take a good look at Malaysia, arguably the most multicultural country outside the US. The country is in Southeast Asia, with roughly 30m people, roughly 60% ethnic Malay(100% muslim), 23% Chinese(mostly buddhist or christian), brought in by the British in the 1800s to work the rubber plantations and tin mines, and 7% Indian(mostly Hindu), brought in by the British to work the plantations and civil service.

    In 1957 the Brits left and left the power in the hands of the ethnic Malays. The Chinese soon became the most successful and prosperous group and dominated commerce and the professional ranks. In 1969 a major race riot broke out, the largely rural and poor Malays decided to "take back what's theirs", burnt, looted and slaughtered many ethnic Chinese. After the riot the government decided the only way to prevent more riots is to raise the standard of living for the Malays. And they began a massive wealth transfer program through affirmative action that heavily favors ethnic Malays. First, all civil service jobs were given to only ethnic Malays, including the police and military. Then AA was instituted in all local universities where Malays with Cs and Ds in math and science were given preference over Chinese with all A's to all the engineering, medicine and law majors. Today no one in their right mind, not even the rich Malays, want to be treated by a Malay doctor. I know people who were maimed by one of these affirmative actioned Malay "neurosurgeons" who botched a simple routine procedure, and there was no recourse, no one is allowed to sue.

    Thanks to their pandering to the Malay majority and outright voting fraud, the ruling party UMNO has never lost an election and is today the longest serving ruling party in modern history. Any dissent was stifled through the sedition act where dissidents are thrown in jail, roughed up, tossed down 14th story buildings before they even go to trial. All media is strictly controlled and censored by the government, who also controls the military, and 100% of the country's oil production, with a large portion of the profit of Petronas going to the coffers of the corrupt Malay government elites, whatever's left is given to hoi polloi Malays in the form of fluff job positions created in civil service, poorly run quasi-government Malay owned companies like Petronas, full scholarships to study abroad for only ethnic Malays, tax free importation of luxury cars for ethnic Malays, and when the government decided to "privatize" any government function like the postal service or telcom, they gave it in the form of a monopoly to a Malay owned company. All government contracts e.g. for infrastructure are only given to Malay owned companies, even as they have zero expertise for the job. The clever Chinese quickly figured out they could just use a Malay partner in name only to get all government contracts.

    As opposed to the US where affirmative action favors the minority, in Malaysia AA favors the majority. You know it can't last. The minority can only prop up the majority for so long. Growth today is largely propped up by oil income, and the oil reserve is dwindling. Even Mahathir the former prime minister who started the most blatant racial discrimination policy against the Chinese started chastising the Malays of late, saying they've become too lazy and dependent on government largess.

    Yet despite the heavy discrimination, the Chinese continued to thrive thanks to their industriousness and ingenuity, while many rural Malays not connected with the governing elite remain poor -- classic case of strengthening the strong and weakening the weak. According to Forbes, of the top 10 richest men in Malaysia today, 9 are ethnic Chinese, only 1 is an ethnic Malay who was given everything he had. Green with envy, the ethnic Malays demanded more to keep the government in power. So a new law was made – all Chinese owned businesses have to give 30% ownership to an ethnic Malay, just like that.

    Needless to say all this racial discrimination resulted in a massive brain drain for the country. many middle class Indians joined the Chinese and emigrated en masse to Australia, NZ, US, Canada, Europe, Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Japan. The ones left are often destitute and poor, heavily discriminated against due to their darker skin, and became criminals. Al Jazeera recently reported that the 7% ethnic Indians in Malaysia commit 70% of the crime.

    To see how much this has cost Malaysia -- Singapore split off from Malaysia 2 years after their joint independence from Britain and was left in destitute as they have no natural resources. But Lee Kuan Yew with the help of many Malaysian Chinese who emigrated to Singapore turned it into one of the richest countries in the world in one generation with a nominal per capita GDP of $53k, while Malaysia is firmly stuck at $9.4k, despite being endowed with natural resources from oil to tin and beautiful beaches. The combination of heavy emigration among the Chinese and high birthrate among the muslim Malays encouraged by racialist Mahathir, the Chinese went from 40% of the population in 1957 to 23% today. The Indians went from 11% to 7%.

    I fear that I'm seeing the same kind of problem in the US. It's supremely stupid for the whites to want to give up their majority status through open borders. Most Asians like me who immigrated here decades ago did it to get away from the corrupt, dishonest, dog-eat-dog, misogynistic culture of Asia. But when so many are now here, it defeats the purpose. The larger the immigrant group, the longer it takes to assimilate them. Multiculturalism is a failed concept, especially when coupled with identity politics. Affirmative Action does not work, it only creates a toxic cycle of dependency. The US is playing with fire. We need a 20 year moratorium on immigration and assimilate all those already here. Otherwise, I fear the US will turn into another basketcase like Malaysia.

    Truth > , August 16, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT

    @Liberty Mike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RrWfNonLDQ

    Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    @Tom Welsh There were only about one million Indians living in what is the United States in 1500. There are now 3 million living in much better conditions than in 1500.

    I would be willing to accept non White immigration if the non White immigrants and our government would end affirmative action for non Whites.

    Asians are discriminated against in college admissions. But in the job market they have affirmative action aristocratic status over Whites.

    Truth > , August 16, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    @Liberty Mike The sno percentage is much higher an Ukraine, Hungary and Austria than here.

    Joe Wong > , August 16, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT

    @Diversity Heretic John Derbyshire has made similar arguments--racial preferences are the price for social peace. But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian children to buffer black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial lambs" for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.

    There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they are able.

    Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.

    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

    admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice,

    The Black are protesting relentlessly and loudly verbally and thru assertive actions about the racial discrimination they have been facing. I have never seen those academically unqualified blacks admitted to the elite schools have stood up using themselves as shiny examples to refute the discrimination allegations the Black made against the White.

    While the policy to protect the racial peace by admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools failed miserably, the restricting the smart and qualified Asians to elite schools is blatantly racial injustice practice exercised in broad day light with a straight face lie. The strategy is to cause resentment between the minorities so that the White can admitting their academically unqualified ones to elite schools without arousing scrutiny.

    Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT

    @Saxon I'm white, you stupid faggot.

    I am extremely committed that you White Trashionalists fulfill your duty as wastebaskets of genetic matter.

    Excellent whites exist only because the waste produced gets removed in the form of WN wiggers.

    Like I said, there is a huge variance within whites. Therefore, you have no business speaking for respectable whites.

    Worst of all, you Nationalist-Leftists are un-American.

    Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:04 pm GMT

    @Astuteobservor II Just google solutrean theory Europeans arrived in America 20,000 years ago. Many articles come up including from smithsonian.

    The east coast Canadian Indians always had the founding myth they came over the ocean.

    There's a book, Across The Atlantic Ice by Dennis Stanford on kindle, Amazon and many book stores.

    Priss Factor > , Website August 16, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

    Here is one 'smart Asian' who is not a Self-Righteous Addict of Proglobalism, but what a clown.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrytSEyUoY

    Dineshisms are always funny as hell.

    Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
    And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are responsible for Nazism. I mean

    Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party. Aint no more.
    GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials. LOL.
    Things change.

    Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.

    Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.

    Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.

    Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.

    Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.

    Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.

    Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past, they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative' or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism, therefore, it was essentially leftist.

    Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT

    @Joe Wong All the Whites and Asians who are admitted to the top 25 schools are superbly qualified. There are so many applicants every White and Asian is superbly qualified.

    The entire point of affirmative action is that Asians and Whites are discriminated against in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Harvard proudly proclaims that is now majority non White.

    Don't worry, the Jews decided long ago that you Asian drones would have medicine and tech, Hispanics construction, food, trucking,and cleaning and Hispanics and blacks would share government work and public education.

    Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control the Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.

    Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT

    @Truth Do you think Beavis and Butthead are choosing Angola over Austria?

    Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:31 pm GMT

    @Macumazahn Affirmative action punishes Whites as well and Asians are always free to go back to wherever their parents or grandparents came from.

    After 400 years, Whites can't go anywhere.

    Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:35 pm GMT

    @Thomm Do you favor affirmative action?

    Joe Wong > , August 16, 2017 at 10:40 pm GMT

    @Wally So you are a tough guy, and never give in anything to anyone in your life? It seems the Jews have similar view as yours, the Jews insist that if they give in an inch to those Holocaust deniers, they will keep demanding more & more, at the beginning the Holocaust deniers will demand for the evidence, then they will demand the Jews are at fault, then they will demand the Nazi to be resurrected, then they will demand they can carry out Holocaust against anyone they don't like, Pretty soon they will demand they to be treated like the pigs in the Orwellian's Animal Farm.

    Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT

    @Thomm "Un-American" is descriptively flaccid. It means nada, nothing, zero. It is vapid and so empty and such a lame lexeme.

    Any word that is hackneyed, lifeless, and so low energy would never be scripted by a White committed to excellence.

    F the media > , August 16, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT

    @Priss Factor Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.

    Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.

    They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.

    Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.

    Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.

    Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.

    Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.

    If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.

    But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal PC tards.

    Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate, and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bs_BbIBCoY

    Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then, you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who ran from dirty browns shi**ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?

    PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of slave ancestry. That's it.

    Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but...' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest. Asia is a big continent and Asians of different ethnicity have very different voting patterns due to their culture and history. Japanese-Americans tend to be the most liberal ethnic group of all Asian groups because of their experience with internment during WWII. Somehow they conveniently forgot that it was a Democrat president who put them in internment, and are now putting the blames squarely on the right for what happened. These Japanese-Americans are drinking the kool-aid big time, but in the 90s I remember a Japanese prime minister got in big trouble for saying America's biggest problem is we have too many blacks and hispanics dragging us down.

    Filipinos, Hmongs and other Southeast Asians tend to be poor and rely on government largess to a certain extent, and also benefit from affirmative action at least in the state of CA, they also tend to be liberal.

    In this election cycle Indian-Americans have become the most vocal anti-Trumpers. From Indian politicians from WA state like Kshama Sawant, Pramila Jayapal to Indian entertainers like Aziz Ansari, Hasan Minaj, Kumail Nanjani, to Silicon Valley techies like Calexit mastermind VC Shervin Pishevar, Google CEO Sundra Pichai, all are socialist libtards. In my local election, several Indians are running for city council. All are first generation, all Democrats and champions of liberal policies. It's as if they have amnesia(or just lower IQ), not remembering that socialism was why they had to leave the shithole India to begin with. A Korean American is running as a Republican.

    There are Chinese idiots like Ted Lieu and other asians who've gone to elite schools therefore drinking the kool-aid and insisted AA is good for Asian Americans, but most Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese tend to be more conservative and lean Republican. During the Trump campaign Breitbart printed a story about a group of Chinese Americans voicing their support for Trump despite his anti-China rhetoric because they had no intention of seeing the US turned into another socialist shithole like China.

    Per the NYT a major reason Asians vote Republican is because of AA. Asians revere education, esp. the Chinese and Koreans, and they see holistic admission is largely bullshit set up by Jews to protect their legacy status while throwing a few bones to under qualified blacks and hispanics. Unfortunately it didn't seem to dampen their desire to immigrate here. Given that there are 4 billion Asians and thanks to open borders, if it weren't for AA all our top 100 schools will be 100% Asian in no time. I suggest we first curtail Asian immigration, limit their number to no more than 10,000 a year, then we can discuss dismantling AA.

    Anon > , Disclaimer August 16, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT

    @Wally This is false. See:

    https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

    California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Delaware would be the least dependent state in the US.

    Clue: It isn't.

    Anon > , Disclaimer August 16, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT

    @Wally This is false. See:

    https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

    California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Maine would be among the least dependent states in the US.

    Clue: It isn't.

    Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

    @Alden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

    if the wiki is reliable. you shouldn't be telling others like it is a cold hard fact. But still a very interesting read. thanks for bringing it up.

    Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 10:48 pm GMT

    @Alden

    But in the job market they have affirmative action aristocratic status over Whites.

    that is another bold claim. I know of black quotas, but asian quota???

    F the media > , August 16, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT

    @Astuteobservor II The Indian tribe in tech is known to favor Indians in hiring. I've read from other Indian posters elsewhere that Indian managers like to hire Indian underlings because they are easier to bully.

    Indian outsourcing firms like Infosys, TCS, Wipro are like 90% Indian, mostly imported directly from India, with token whites as admin or account manager.

    THe Realist > , Website August 16, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT

    @Truth See #65 above. You die, too, boy.

    F the media > , August 16, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT

    @Carlton Meyer That's pretty funny. The guy's got balls. Probably son of some corrupt Chinese government official used to being treated like an emperor back home, ain't taking no shit from black folks.

    I suppose this is what happens when universities clamor to accept foreign students because they are full pay. His tuition dollar is directly subsidizing these affirmative action hacks, who are now preventing him from studying. He has fully paid for his right to tell them to STFU.

    Joe Wong > , August 16, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT

    @Beckow Romans did not think Europe was a nice place to live, full of bloodthirsty barbarians, uneducated, smelly, dirty, foul mouth and rogue manner, even nowadays a lot of them cannot use full set of tableware to finish their meal, a single fork will do, it is a litte more civilized than those use fingers only.

    After a millennium of dark age of superstition, religious cult suppression, utter poverty medieval serf Europe, it followed by centuries of racial cleanses, complete destruction of war, stealing and hypocrisy on industrial scale, this time not only restricted to Europe the plague flooded the whole planet.

    Even nowadays the same plague from Europe and its offshoots in the North America is threatening to exterminate the human beings with a big bang for their blinding racial obligatory. The rest of the world only can hope this plague would stay put in North America and Europe, so the rest world can live in peace and prosperity.

    Joe Franklin > , August 16, 2017 at 11:33 pm GMT

    Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups of diversity.

    Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.

    1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
    2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
    3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
    4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
    4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
    5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
    6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
    7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
    8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
    9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians

    Reg Cćsar > , August 16, 2017 at 11:38 pm GMT

    @Thomm

    Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are quite distinct.

    In their original countries they are, but in America they are almost identical in all ways except appearance and diet.

    And odor.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 12:10 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Thomm=the girly boy blatherings of a White Libertarian Cuck...

    The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans"...Korean "Americans"....Hindu "Americans"...Sihk "Americans"...and Iranian "Americans"?


    Answer:0.... Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!


    Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers...go read Denis Kearney's Rebel Rousing speeches...google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the passage of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act... It is MUCH better to be a libertarian than to be a Nationalist-Leftist. You have effectively admitted that you want intra-white socialism since you can't hack it yourself.

    Socialists = untalented losers.

    Plus, I guarantee that your ancestors were not in America since 1776. You are just some 2nd-gen Polack or something.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT

    @Alden

    Do you favor affirmative action?

    Absolutely not. It is one of the worst things ever devised.

    Issac > , August 17, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT

    @Thomm Sounds like a Jewish fantasy.

    Vinteuil > , August 17, 2017 at 12:14 am GMT

    @Priss Factor Here is one 'smart Asian' who is not a Self-Righteous Addict of Proglobalism, but what a clown.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrytSEyUoY

    Dineshisms are always funny as hell.

    Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
    And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are responsible for Nazism. I mean...

    Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party. Aint no more.
    GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials. LOL.
    Things change.

    Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.

    Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.

    Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.

    Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.

    Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.

    Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.

    Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past, they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative' or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism, therefore, it was essentially leftist. "Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones."

    Priss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't favor "traditionalist aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.

    Issac > , August 17, 2017 at 12:15 am GMT

    @Joe Wong Ah yes, the whites are well known for their bigotry. That's why they're so mono-racial and China is so diverse. Good point Chang.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 12:15 am GMT

    @Joe Franklin Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups of diversity.

    Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.


    1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
    2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
    3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
    4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
    4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
    5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
    6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
    7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
    8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
    9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians That is completely false. You just memorized that from some bogus site.

    Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.

    Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.

    H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.

    Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success was not due to AA.

    Joe Wong > , August 17, 2017 at 12:15 am GMT

    @Alden

    the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control

    I am not sure the Muslim and Indian will agree to that, they have a very strong birth rate that can match if not surpass the blacks too.

    Saxon > , August 17, 2017 at 12:46 am GMT

    @Thomm Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.

    There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad!

    Ron Unz > , August 17, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT

    @Alden

    Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control the Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.

    I don't think this is correct

    Since California already has (very roughly) the future demographics you're considering, I think it serves as a good test-case.

    The Hispanic and Asian populations have been growing rapidly, and they tend to hold an increasing share of the political power, together with the large white population, though until very recently most of the top offices were still held by (elderly) whites. Whites would have much more political power, except that roughly half of them are still Republicans, and the Republican Party has almost none.

    In most of the urban areas, there's relatively little black crime these days since so many of the blacks have been driven away or sent off to prison. I'd also say that major black riots in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local police forces are heavily Hispanic: they don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot the black rioters dead while being backed up by the politicians, and many of the blacks probably recognize this. Admittedly, CA always had a relatively small black population, but that didn't prevent enormous black crime and black riots in the past due to the different demographics.

    Meanwhile, Jewish-activists still possess enormous influence over CA politics, but they exert that influence through money and media, just like they do everywhere else in the country.

    Astuteobservor II > , August 17, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT

    @F the media that is actually true about indians. I have first hand account of a 100+ tech dept getting taken over by indians in just 3 years :/ but that is not a "quota" that is just indians abusing their power once in position of power.

    Priss Factor > , August 17, 2017 at 1:26 am GMT

    @Vinteuil Priss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't favor "traditionalist aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.

    Right.. Ballet, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and classic literature. That's some pop crap.
    Soviet Culture was about commie Lena Dunhams.

    Now, most of Soviet culture was what might be called kitsch or middlebrow stuff, but it was not 'pop crap' as known in the West.

    Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 1:35 am GMT

    @THe Realist LOL, if you're the one holding the knife, hatchet, billy club or brick, I like my chances.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 1:58 am GMT

    @Saxon Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.

    There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad! Whatever helps you sleep at night..

    Yesterday I was called a Jew. Today, it is Indian. In reality, I am a white American guy.

    You white trashionalists can't get your stories straight, can you? Well, WNs are known for having negro IQs.

    Asians don't get affirmative action. They outscore whites in the SAT.

    But even blacks outscore WNs like you.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Joe Franklin > , August 17, 2017 at 2:03 am GMT

    @Thomm That is completely false. You just memorized that from some bogus site.

    Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.

    Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.

    H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.

    Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success was not due to AA. You have reading comprehension problems to have confused Federal 8A government contacts with Section 8 housing.

    8A contracts are federal contracts granted to "socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s)."

    https://www.sba.gov/contracting/government-contracting-programs/8a-business-development-program/eligibility-requirements/8a-requirements-overview

    The business must be majority-owned (51 percent or more) and controlled/managed by socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s).

    The individual(s) controlling and managing the firm on a full-time basis must meet the SBA requirement for disadvantage, by proving both social disadvantage and economic disadvantage.

    http://sbda.com/sba_8(a) .htm

    Definition of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals

    Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identities as members of groups without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.

    In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following individuals are presumed to be socially disadvantaged:

    • Black Americans;

    • Hispanic Americans (persons with origins from Latin America, South America, Portugal and Spain);

    • Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians);


    • Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, Samoa, Guam, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands [Republic of Palau], Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Laos, Cambodia [Kampuchea], Taiwan, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Macao, Hong Kong, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru);

    • Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal);

    • And members of other groups designated from time to time by the SBA.

    Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:20 am GMT

    @F the media

    That's pretty funny. The guy's got balls.

    Nah, just some goofy nerd working on his PhD in Library Science.

    THIS Kat on the other hand is my N-!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaTLgw_akhg

    Beckow > , August 17, 2017 at 2:25 am GMT

    @Joe Wong Romans lived in Europe, get an atlas, Rome is in Europe. I will skip over your silly summaries of European history, we all can do it to any civilization all day. Pointless. Try China. Oh, I forgot, nobody knows much Chinese up and downs because it was mostly inconsequential.

    If you call others 'racist' all the time, they might just not take your seriously. Or simply say, fine, if liking one's culture is now 'racism', if it is a white culture, then count me in. The rest of the world is tripping over itself to move – literally to physically move – to Europe and North America. Why do you think that is?

    Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT

    @Ron Unz

    I'd also say that major black riots in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local police forces are heavily Hispanic: they don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot the black rioters dead

    Oh, would you stop being a make-believe pundit, Ron? That is some commentary you copped from an OJ-era LA Times expose. You've had one conversation with a police officer in your life, and that was over an illegal left term outside the Loma Linda Starbucksand culminated in disturbing the peace when exited your Bentley yelling "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!" at the top of your lungs for 4 minutes.

    Whenever you've had a nudity-mandatory, eyes-wide-shut, type globalist-soiree at your palatial mansion, the only people you invited were politicians, lawyers, Ivy-league economists, Silicon Valley tech nerds and hookers.

    Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT

    @Priss Factor They had to be into all that tired, boring, 11-century old shit; they didn't have any black people.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 2:37 am GMT

    @Joe Franklin We've been over this. 8a is not given to anyone with over $250,000 in assets, as your own link indicates. This means most Asians can't use it anyway (not that they need to).

    The whole program should be done away with, of course.

    What is funny is that you can't accept that Asians have higher SAT scores than whites, which pretty much proves that they can (and do) outperform without AA. You WN idiots can't come to terms with that.

    But Section 8a should be removed just so that WN wiggers don't have anything to hide behind, since Asians don't need it to excel.

    War for Blair Mountain > , August 17, 2017 at 2:44 am GMT

    @Thomm These untalented Socialists you refer to would include the vast majority of America 1969 90 percent Native Born White America .a White Nation that placed two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon .ten more after that. Seems that Socialism worked just fine.

    If you prefer an Asian Majority you can always pack your bags and pick the Asian Nation of your choice.

    uman > , August 17, 2017 at 3:09 am GMT

    @Ron Unz hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will not have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be made for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.

    So with future aa population of 14%, that's 60 million blacks in america in 2060 timeframe, although that will have an increasing amount of immigration from africa, which tends to be more educated (at least 1st and 2nd generation).

    Asians will be about 8%, so that's a poweful community of 40 million. I see tech and wall street with increasing amount of asian representations.

    What i would be interested in seeing if there will any maverick asian billionaires that could disrupt the narrative.

    Ronnie > , August 17, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT

    This article may tend to take your mind off the real racial injustice at Harvard. In an article "Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans" in the NY Times, August 3, 2017 ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS and STEPHANIE SAUL wrote ""The Harvard lawsuit likens attitudes toward Asian-Americans to attitudes toward Jews at Harvard, beginning around 1920, when Jews were a high-achieving minority. In 1918, Jews reached 20 percent of the Harvard freshman class, and the university soon proposed a quota to lower the number of Jewish students."" In my humble opinion this is a misleading statement which implies that the admission of Jews remained below 20% in the years after 1918. In fact Hillel reports that in recent years the admission of jews to Harvard has been around 25% of the class. This means that almost half of the class are white and half of this white group are Jews. That seems like an amazing over-representation of Jews who are only 2% of our population. So, at least as many Jews as Asians are admitted to Harvard. No wonder the Asians are upset. I note that this article does not point out this Jewish bias in admissions at Harvard and neither did the Asians. Is this another manifestation of political correctness? Or is it an egregious example of racism? This problem is the real elephant in the room. This is the Jewish racism that dare not speak its name. Until lately.

    Joe Franklin > , August 17, 2017 at 3:38 am GMT

    @Thomm Thanks for changing the subject back to 8A contracts, a subject I first brought up.

    You ignorantly labeled me a liar and then prattled on about unrelated Section 8 housing.

    I've never mentioned anything about SAT scores because they are irrelevant to anything whatsoever that I've posted.

    SAT scores are your irrelevant preoccupation, not mine.

    I'm just a person that detests government diversity schemes, group entitlements, and federal protected class groups.

    Like it or not, Asians are one of many federal protected class groups entitled by law.

    I'm not a WN nor did I ever claim to be a WN; just another example of your fevered and imagined conversations with me.

    You are fairly stupid to claim that "most Asians" are rich.

    You appear to be a grossly ignorant and arrogant dickhead.

    Priss Factor > , Website August 17, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

    @Truth Truth, you is so wise and true. You's right. Them Russian dummies didn't have no vibrant black folks to make fun music that could make them wiggle their butts all their night long. So, they grew stale and bored and drank too much vodka, caught fish with penis, and wrestled with bears and didn't have the all the cool stuff like the US has.

    All the world needs to be colonized by superior Negroes cuz folks will just die of boredom.
    At least if you get killed by Negroes, it's exciting-like.

    Ron Unz > , August 17, 2017 at 3:54 am GMT

    @uman

    hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will not have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be made for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.

    Well, my California analogy was self-admittedly very rough and approximate given the considerable differences in demographics. But I strongly suspect that such considerations provide a hidden key to some contentious national policies of the last couple of decades, and I've actually written extensively on the subject:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:23 am GMT

    @Joe Franklin

    You are fairly stupid to claim that "most Asians" are rich.

    They have higher household income than whites. Many do not qualify for 8a (not that they needed).

    But yes, 8a should be abolished, just like ALL other affirmative action.

    SAT scores are your irrelevant preoccupation, not mine.

    It is relevant, because it demolishes your retarded belief that Asian success would not have happened without affirmative action.

    You really are quite lacking in basic intelligence. A typical white trashionalist.

    MarkinLA > , August 17, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

    @Anon I imagine it was far different before the defense wind-downs of the mid 90s. Along with the many cut-backs a lot of defense was moved out of California by the contractors as punishment for California's liberal Congressmen. Companies that merged with California based operation usually consolidated outside California such as when Raytheon swallowed up Hughes Aircraft Companies defense operations and moved R&D to Massachusetts.

    dearieme > , August 17, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

    @Liberty Mike I know several white people who would rather live in Botswana than the Ukraine. They have the advantage of having visited . The rest of your list seems pretty sound with the possible exception of Swaziland.

    P.S. If you deleted Austria and Hungary and replaced them by Albania and Kosovo you might make your point even stronger.

    dearieme > , August 17, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

    @Joe Franklin Good God, how absolutely awful to hale from Portugal, Spain, or Singapore.

    Saxon > , August 17, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

    @Thomm You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society. Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say, some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.

    Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way, just not in education.

    Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

    @Priss Factor Alright, you're finally starting to get it.

    MarkinLA > , August 17, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

    @Thomm I seem to remember you telling everybody that Asians DON'T get affirmative action JUST GOOGLE IT without ever offering proof. Of course it never occurred to you that there could never be any documented proof of something like that. There isn't even official documented proof that white males don't get affirmative action. When people claimed and linked to articles indicating Asians are considered disadvantaged by the government, you claimed those people didn't know what they were talking about JUST GOOGLE IT.

    I think you made it quite obvious who the idiot is.

    Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT

    It's time to force our "Golden Dozen" (Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Amherst and Williams) to admit 100% black until the average black income($43k) equals that of average white income($71k).

    I'm Asian and I approve of this message.

    Azn_bro > , August 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT

    @Thomm The worst hate crimes I have personally witnessed were perpetrated by black men. I have also seen more casual racism against Asians from blacks than from whites. This might be different in other parts of the country or world.

    Outside of the U.S., East Asians are the least likely to want to engage in some kind of anti-white alliance since all of the West's most embarrassing military defeats have come from East Asians. We have always relied on guns and not white guilt for racial equality.

    Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT

    @Ronnie In case you haven't noticed, Jews run this country. They dominate the media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, Capitol Hill via the DNC and lobbying firms, Silicon Valley. Per the NYT 80% of Jews are self-proclaimed liberals. They are obsessed with dismantling the WASP World Order that in their mind has oppressed them for the last 2000 years. The Ivy League is the pipeline to these 6 sectors that collectively control the country, whoever controls Harvard controls the country. Jews not only make up majority of the elite college faculty (esp. in the social sciences) but are disproportionately benefiting from legacy admission and development cases(admission of the dim witted sons and daughters of the rich and famous like Malia Obama, Jared Kushner, all of Al Gore's kids).

    Asians are the next up. Practically all Asians who've gone to the Ivy League or Stanford have voiced their support for affirmative action, many are left wing nuts like the Jews. CA house representative Ted Liu is one such kool-aid drinking Asian libtard, along with the HI judge Derrick Watson and Baltimore judge Theodore Chuang, both of whom blocked Trump's temp. suspension of Muslim refugees, both went to Harvard Law. As an Asian I would be more than happy if the Ivy League simply make themselves off limits to all Asians and turn their schools 100% black. We don't need more Asians to get indoctrinated in their dumb liberal ideology and go down in history as the group next to the Jews and the blacks who destroyed America.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:32 pm GMT

    @Saxon You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society. Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say, some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.

    Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way, just not in education.

    Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way, just not in education.

    No they don't, as this very article explains. Could you BE more of a retard?

    Plus, the fact that Asians get higher SAT scores than whites proves that they don't need it. There is a left-wing conspiracy to hide Asian success.

    Now, regarding an underachieving WN faggot like you :

    Remember that white variance is very high. Excellent whites (like me) exist only because genetic waste master has to be removed from the other end of the process. You and other WNs represent that genetic waste matter, and that is why white women are doing a heroic duty of cutting you off (at least the minority of WNs that are straight. Most are gay, as Jack Donovan has explained). Nature wants the waste matter you comprise of to be expelled.

    If you cared about the white race, you would be extremely glad that white women are cutting you off, as that is necessary to get rid of the pollution that you represent.

    Heh heh heh heh . it is so much fun to put a WN faggot in its place.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

    @Azn_bro Yes, what you say is true.

    Any real American would be proud of Asian success, as that represents the American Dream that our country was founded on.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

    @MarkinLA No, I talked about 8a even two weeks ago. Good god, you WN really do have negro IQs.

    8a benefits Asians the least, and THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE ABOLISHED ANYWAY. There should be no AA, ever.

    8a harms Asians as it taints their otherwise pristine claim to having succeeded without AA. They don't need 8a, most don't qualify for it as they exceed the $250,000 cutoff, and it lets WN faggots claim that 'all of Asian success is due to AA', which is demonstrably false.

    Read this slowly, 10 times, so that even a wigger like you can get it.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT

    @Abracadabra Heh.. good one.

    Don't let these WN faggots get away with claiming all of Asian success is merely due to affirmative action. In reality, Asians don't get affirmative action (other than wrongly being included in the Section 8a code form the 1980s, which ultimately was used by barely 2% of the Asian community).

    Remember that among us whites, variance is extremely high. The prettiest woman alongside pretty of ugly fat feminists (who the WN losers still worship). The smartest men, and then these loserish WNs with low IQs and no social skills. White variance is very high.

    That is why WNs are so frustrated. They can't get other whites to give them the time of day, and white women are super-committed to shutting out WN loser males from respectable society.

    Don't let them claim that Asian success is solely due to affirmative action. Remember, respectable whites hate these WN faggots.

    Saxon > , August 17, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

    @Thomm You're not white, though. You're a rentseeker hanging onto someone else's country and the fact that you write barely literate garbage posts with no substance to them tells all about your intellect and your "high achievement." You're not high quality. You're mediocre at best and probably not even that since your writing is so bad.

    Do you even do statistics, though? Whites make up about 70% of the national merit scholars in the US yet aren't in the Ivies at that rate. Harvard for example is maybe only 25% white. Asians are over-represented compared to their merit and jews way over-represented over any merit. Now how does that happen without nepotism? The whole system of any racial favoritism should be scrapped but of course that wouldn't benefit people like you, Thomm.

    George Orwell > , August 17, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

    Whites aren't more innovative and ambitious than Chinese people. You only have to look at the chinless Unite the Right idiots in Charlottesville to dispel any idea that whites are the superior race. The

    üeljang > , August 17, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

    This Thomm character is obviously of East Asian origin. His tedious, repetitive blather about Asians, white women, and "white nationalist faggots" is a telltale sign. One of his type characteristically sounds like he would be so much less distressed if those white males were not white nationalist faggots.

    Diversity Heretic > , August 17, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT

    @Tom Welsh An interesting historical argument My reply Land isn't money Arguably the Normans came back in the form of the Plantagenets to contest the French throne in the 100 Years War. But by that time France wasn't nearly so feeble

    Giving Negroes land in the form of a North American homeland appeals to me (provided whites get one too) although I know the geography is agonizing Blacks tend not to like this suggestion–they realize how depedent they are on whites That wasn't true of the Normans–quite self-reliant fellows!

    Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

    @Thomm I'm not sure what it was that I said that made you think I think all Asian success is due to AA. In fact I think the opposite is true, that Asians succeed in spite of AA, which is set up solely to hinder Asians from joining the club, and as far as I'm concern, it's a club of sell-out globalist libtards that I wouldn't want more Asians to join.

    I've worked in tech long enough to know that in tech, no one gives a fudge where you went to school. I am surrounded by deca-millionaires who went to state schools, many aren't even flagship, some didn't even study STEM. Some didn't even go to college or graduate. The only people I know who still care about the Ivy League are 1st generation often FOB China/India trash, and a small number of Jewish kids looking to benefit from legacy admission, most are gay and/or serious libtards.

    Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

    You can tell that Jewish achievement has fallen off a cliff as Ron Unz asserted by looking at a certain popular college website. The longest running thread that's been up there for nearly a decade with over a thousand pages and over 18,000 posts is called "Colleges for the Jewish "B" student". The site is crawling with uber liberal Jewish mothers and monitored by a gang of Ivy graduated SJWs who strictly enforce their "safe space", posters who post anything at all that might offend anyone (affirmative action is always a sensitive topic) are either thrown in "jail" i.e. ban from posting for a month, or kicked off altogether. The SJW forum monitors even directly edit user comments as they see fit, first amendment rights be damned. This is the future of all online forums if the left have their way, the kind of censorship that Piers Morgan advocates.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

    @Abracadabra Not *you* , them.

    There are plenty of KKK losers on here claiming that Asian success is due to AA. I am saying you should join me in fighting them.

    Note the comments above from Saxon, MarkinLA, etc. They are alll White Trashionalists.

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 8:55 pm GMT

    @Saxon

    Asians are over-represented compared to their merit

    False. The main article here alone proves otherwise, plus dozens of other research articles.

    You just can't stand that Asian success is due to merit. But you have bigger problems, since as a WN, you can't even compete with blacks.

    What bugs you the most is that successful white people like me never give WN faggots the time of day. Most tune you idiots out, but I like to remind you that you are waste matter that is being expunged through the natural evolutionary process.

    Vinteuil > , August 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT

    @Priss Factor Priss, please, please, please try to get this right:

    Stalin DID NOT favor Prokofiev, or Shostakovich. He treated them exactly the same way he treated everybody else – like dirt under his feet.

    Shostakovich's (admittedly disputed) memoirs are essential reading, here. Please check them out before you say anything more.

    Vinteuil > , August 17, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT

    @Thomm " successful white people like me never give WN faggots the time of day "

    So you've got a problem with "faggots?"

    Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT

    @Vinteuil

    So you've got a problem with "faggots?"

    Yes, more so if they are leftists (including Nationalist-Leftists like WNs are). But the fact that WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan points out) also explains why they tend to look grotesque, and it supports the scientific rationale that they are wastebaskets designed to expedite the removal of genetic waste matter.

    White variance in talent/looks/intelligence is high. WN loser males and fat, ugly feminists represent the bottom. In the old days, these two would be married to each other since even the lowest tiers were paired up. Today, thankfully, both are being weeded out.

    Astuteobservor II > , August 17, 2017 at 11:12 pm GMT

    I just realized something. a commenter like thomm is the perfect counter to some of the others. hahaha.

    Pachyderm Pachyderma > , August 17, 2017 at 11:35 pm GMT

    @Saxon God! you are stupid, Saxon he isn't a Paki, he is a Chinaman. No wonder the Normans put you guys in thrall!

    Pachyderm Pachyderma > , August 18, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT

    @Alden Sure you can why not go back to Europe to replace the growing number of Muslims? It can kill two birds with a single shor!

    Thomm > , August 18, 2017 at 1:27 am GMT

    @Pachyderm Pachyderma Not just that, but some of these 'white nationalists' are just recent immigrants from Poland and Ukraine. They are desperate to take credit for Western Civilization that they did nothing to create. Deep down, they know that during the Cold War, they were not considered 'white' in America.

    400 years? i.e. when most of what is now the lower-48 was controlled by a Spanish-speaking government? Yeah Many of these WNs have been here only 30-70 years. That is one category (the domestic WN wiggers are the other)

    Both are equally underachieving and loserish.

    MarkinLA > , August 18, 2017 at 3:02 am GMT

    @Thomm It's too late, everybody knows what I wrote is true and that you are some pathetic millennial libertarian pajama boy. The sad fact is that you can't even man up and admit that you wrote that BS about "Asians don't get affirmative action just google it". See that would have at least have been a sign of maturity, admitting you were wrong.

    There is no point reading anything, even once, from a pathetic pajama boy like you.

    Thomm > , August 18, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

    @MarkinLA I openly said that I am proud to be libertarian. Remember, talented people can hack in on their own, so they are libertarians.

    Untalented losers (like you) want socialism so that you can mooch off of others.

    Plus, Asians don't get affirmative action outside of one obscure place (Section 8a) which they often don't qualify for ($250K asset cutoff), don't need, and was never used by more than 2% of the Asian-American community. The fact that Asian SAT scores are higher than whites explains why Asians outperform without AA.

    Plus, this very article says that Asians are being held back. A WN faggot like you cannot grasp that even though you are commenting in the comments of this article. Could you be any dumber?

    I realize you are not smart enough to grasp these basic concepts, but that is why we all know that white trashionalists have negro IQs.

    Now begone; you are getting in the way of your betters.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Thomm > , August 18, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

    Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence, whites occupy both extremities of human quality.

    Hence, the hierarchy of economic productivity is :

    Talented whites (including Jews)
    Asians (East and South)
    Hispanics
    Blacks
    Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).

    That is why :

    1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites.
    2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
    3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
    4) WNs are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes sense based on the hierarchy above.
    5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine the worst of all worlds.
    6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything to do with white trashionalists.
    7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets.
    8) The 80s movie 'Twins' was in effect a way to make these wastebaskets feel good, as eventually, the Arnold Schwarzenegger character bonded with the Danny DeVito character. But these two twins effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. In reality, these two would never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.

    This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.

    TWS > , August 18, 2017 at 4:38 pm GMT

    @Thomm Tiny Duck? You decided to larp under a different handle?

    Incontrovertible > , August 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

    Elite colleges are a prime example of left wing hypocrisy. The same people who are constantly calling for an equal society are at the same time perpetuating the most unequal society by clamoring to send their kids to a few elite schools that will ensure their entry to or retain their ranks among the elites. Equality for everyone else, elitism for me and my kids. David Brook's nausea inducing self-hating pablum "How we are ruining America" is a prime example of this hypocrisy.

    Another good example of left wing hypocrisy is on "school integration". The same people who condemn "bad schools" for the urban poor and call for more integration are always the first to move into the whitest possible neighborhoods as soon as they have kids. They aren't willing to sacrifice their own kids, they just want other people to sacrifice their children by sending them to bad schools.

    If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

    Tradecraft46 > , August 18, 2017 at 10:00 pm GMT

    Look, the world is short handed: we need good help or we pay dues.

    Affirmative action and the EEOC are not the answer.

    When you need help you get help and don't care if they are green [in the color sense or have supernumerary digits.

    I don't need agreement with my whimsy, I just need people who will turn to.

    Gene Su > , August 19, 2017 at 1:46 am GMT

    When I first saw the title of this article, I, being an Asian, was a tad insulted. It smelled like Dr. Weissberg was attempting to create (or at least escalate) racial strife between Asians and blacks. I then read through the article and evaluated the bad and the good.

    First the bad: Dr. Weissberg's assertion that Asians are being hurt by the Affirmative Action promotion of blacks is a bit exaggerated. This is because most Asians go into rigorous difficult programs such as engineering, science, and medicine. Most black affirmative action babies go into soft programs such as Black Studies (and whatever else the humanities have degenerated into).

    Now the good: I think this is the most true portion of the essay.

    Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership.

    I have once wrote that whites stopped sneering at MLK when Malcolm X and the Black Panthers began taking center stage. They sure became more accommodating of "moderate" blacks. With all of the terrorist attacks going on and with blacks converting to Islam, I don't think we're going to get rid of affirmative action any time soon.

    Nicholas Stix > , Website August 19, 2017 at 2:42 am GMT

    This is a politically plausible but morally craven plan, if we're in 1960.

    Oops.

    Priss Factor > , Website August 19, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

    @Vinteuil Stalin alternated between favoritism and intimidation. The truth is he did have an eye and ear for culture unlike Mao who was a total philistine.

    If Stalin really hated artists, he would have killed all of them.

    He appreciated them but kept a close eye.

    He loved the first IVAN THE TERRIBLE by Eisenstein, but he sensed that the second one was a criticism of him, and Eisenstein came under great stress.

    Vinteuil > , August 19, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT

    OK, well, Stalin loved the movies, and may have had an eye for effective cinema. But when it came to music he was, precisely, a total philistine. On this point, I again recommend Shostakovich's disputed *Testimony,* a work unique in its combination of hilarity and horror, both of which come to a head in his account of the competition to write a new national anthem to replace the internationale – pp. 256-64. A must read.

    DB Cooper > , August 19, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT

    @Thomm Can you explain why if South Asians has such high economic productivity India is such a sh*thole?

    Stebbing Heuer > , Website August 19, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT

    @Rdm That's the second comment here picking on bald guys.

    What do you have against the bald?

    You do realise that it's not possible to control baldness? It's an outcome of genetics, yes?

    You do also realise that there is zero correlation between baldness and the quality of one's character?

    Are you really as stupid as you appear to be?

    MarkinLA > , August 19, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT

    Is this the Onion?

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/usc-mascot-traveler-comes-under-fire-having-name-similar-robt-e-lees-horse

    I wonder how a Bruin is going to be a symbol of racism?

    Thomm > , August 20, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT

    @DB Cooper For the same reason North Korea is poorer than South Korea, despite being the same people.
    For the same reason the GDR was so much poorer than the FRG, despite the same people.

    You probably never even thought about that.

    A bad political system takes decades to recover from. Remember that the British also strip-mined India for 200 years..

    Come on, these are novice questions

    If you think the success of Asian-Americans in general (and Indian-Americans in particular) does not jive with your beliefs, then the burden of explaining what that is, is on you.

    Indians happen to be the highest-income group in the US. Also very high are Filipinos and Taiwanese.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

    Most WNs are far, far below the intellectual level where they can grasp the complexities of issues like this.

    Thomm > , August 20, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT

    BTW, the economic center of gravity of the world has always been near Asia, except for a 200-year period from 1820-2020.

    That the West would cede to Asia is really just a reversion to the historical norm.

    WNs are not smart enough to understand maps/charts like this one, but others will find this interesting.

    Russ Nieli > , August 20, 2017 at 8:11 am GMT

    Bob,

    Racial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including the elite public universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative. No black violence ensued. There is little reason to think the black response would be different if the 8 Ivy League universities ended their policies of racial preferences. Blacks would adjust their expectations. Fear of black rioting and the desire to jumpstart the creation of a large and peaceful black middle class may have been important motives for the initial development of racial preference policies in the late 1960s; they are not major reasons for their retention and continued support from white administrators today. Other reasons and motives are operative (including what I call R-word dread).
    PS: Cornel West has moved from Princeton to Harvard Divinity School.

    Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 12:35 pm GMT

    "Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than dealing with widespread 1960s style urban violence."

    Except back in the '60′s; the White, Euro-derived people were unwilling to fight back. They felt guilty and half-blamed themselves. Not. Any. More! The costs -- social, mental, emotional, physical; pick your metric! -- have now exceeded the patience of WAY more Americans than the media is letting on.

    Did you not see 20- and 30-THOUSAND, mostly White Euro-derived, Americans rallying to candidate -- and now President -- Trump's side? (No, the media carefully clipped the videos to hide those numbers, but there they (we!) were! We're done! We're fed up! "FEEDING" these destructive vermin to keep them from destroying our houses and families (and nation and country!) is no longer acceptable! You "don't let Gremlins eat after midnight"? Well, we did -- and now we're in a war against them.

    You think this capitulating in education is preventing 'widespread 1960s-style urban violence? Have you not watched the news? We pretty much already are: ask NYC how many "sliced with a knife" attacks they have there! In JUST Jan. and Feb., there were well more than 500! (Seriously vicious attacks with knives and razor blades -- media mentioned it once for a few days, and then shut up.) Look at the fair in Indianapolis; count up rape statistics; investigate the "knock-out game" ("polar bear hunting" -- guess who's the polar bear?!). (Oh yeah, and: Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago; look at ANY black-filled ruin of a city ) If (when!) we finally have to (CHOOSE to) deal with this low-grade war -- WHO is better armed, better prepared, SMARTER, and fed up?

    "This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs."

    Wait, wait -- these are White schools, built by White Americans FOR White Americans! "Oh, the poor Asians are not getting their 'fair share' cause the blacks are getting way more than their 'fair share'?! The Asians' 'fair share' is GO HOME!! The Asians don't have a 'fair share' in White AMERICAN universities; we LET them come here and study -- and that is a KINDNESS: they don't have a 'fair share' of OUR country! How about: stop giving preferences to every damned race and nationality other than the one that BUILT this country and these universities!

    Check your premises!

    Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Call them what they are: "paperwork Americans"! Having the paperwork does NOT make them Americans, and nothing ever will!

    Imagine a virgin land with no inhabitants: if you took all the Chinese "Americans" or all the Pakistani "Americans" or Black "Americans" or Mexican "Americans" (funny, why did you leave those last two out?! Way more of them than the others ) and moved them there, would they -- COULD they ever -- create another America? No, they would create another China, or another Pakistan -- or their own version of the hellholes their forebears (or they themselves) came from. ONLY White, ONLY Euro-derived Americans could recreate an America.

    And this goes, also, to answer the grumbling "Native" Americans who were also NOT native, yes? Siberia, Bering land bridge, ever heard of those? Do you not even know your own pre-history?! What "America" was here when it was a sparse population of warring tribes of variously related Indian groups? What did your forebears make of this continent?

    Nothing. There would be no "America" where everyone wants to come and benefit by taking; because ONLY the White settlers (not immigrants: SETTLERS!) were able to create America! And as all you non-Americans (AND paperwork "Americans") continue to swamp and change America for your own benefit -- you will be losing the very thing you came here to take (unfair!) advantage of!

    Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

    @MEFOBILLS

    At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks that don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country of their choice.

    Chip 'em and ship 'em! Microchip where they CAN'T 'dig it out' to prevent them from ever ever ever returning! And ship 'em out! I'd pay a LOT to have this done!

    Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT

    @Mis(ter)Anthrope

    Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.

    They (we!) tried that years ago. The BLACK COPS SUED because they were working in the shittiest places with the shittiest, most violent people -- and "the White cops had it easy."

    NOT EVEN the blacks want to be with the blacks -- hence them chasing down every last White person, to inflict their Dis-Verse-City on us!

    Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

    @The peril of appeasement

    The larger the immigrant group, the longer it takes to assimilate them.

    Alas, typical "paperwork American" lack of understanding! I wrote this to a (White) American who wants to keep importing everyone ("save the children!") -- and, she insisted, they "could" assimilate. However, here's what 'assimilate" means:

    Suppose you and your family decided to move to, say, Cambodia. You go there intending to "get your part of the Cambodian dream," you go there to become Cambodian citizens, to assimilate and join them, not to invade and change them. You want to adopt their ways, to *assimilate.* Yes? This is how you describe legal immigrants to OUR country (The United States.)

    How long would it take for you and your children to be (or even just feel) "assimilated"? How long would it take for you to see your descendants as "assimilated" -- AS Cambodians? Years? Decades? Generations? Would you be trying to fit in -- and "become" Cambodians; or would you be trying to not forget your heritage? ("Heritage"?! Like, Cinco de Mayo, which they don't even celebrate IN Mexico? Or Kwanza -- a CIA-invented completely fake holiday!)

    More important: since it's their country -- how long until THEY see you as "Cambodians" and not foreigners. I know a man and family who have lived in Italy for over 20 years. To the Italians in the village where they live, they are still "stranieri": strangers. After this long, to the local Italians, they're not just "the Americans who moved here" -- they're " our Americans" -- but they are still seen as 100% not Italian, not local: not "assimilated"!

    Would you and your children and grandchildren learn to speak, read, and write Cambodian -- and stop trying to use English for anything much in your new homeland? Would you join their clubs -- would you join their NATIONAL RELIGION!? Does "becoming Cambodian" -- does "assimilating" -- not actually include (trying to) become Cambodian (and, thus, ceasing to be American)? (If that were even possible; and it's not.) "Assimilation" is a stupid hope, not a possible reality.

    That is where my friend balked. She said: she and her family are very Christian, and no way at all ever would they drop Christianity and pick up Cambodian Buddhism. So -- how can they EVER "assimilate" when they (quite rightly) REFUSE to assimilate?!

    Please stop buying into the lies the destroyers of OUR nation keep selling. There is no such thing as "assimilation"; only economic parasitism, jihadi invasion, and benefiting from the systems set up by OUR forebears for THEIR posterity!

    Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT

    @Priss Factor

    Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.

    Yes. Yes it does. Go watch/listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roMLmYnjslc

    The official topic being debated is: "Are National Socialists a legitimate element of the Alt-Right?"
    Greg Johnson argues, Yes.
    Vox Day argues, No.

    rec1man > , August 20, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

    @DB Cooper Socialism and Affirmative Action

    In my origin state of Tamil Nadu, the effective anti-brahmin quota is 100% ( de-jure is just 69% )

    Sundar Pichai or Indira Nooyi or Vish Anand ( former Chess champ ) or Ramanujam ( late math whiz ), cant get a Tamil Nadu State Gov , Math school teacher job

    Also, the US gets a biased selection of Indians in terms of caste, class and education

    Of Tamil Speakers in USA, about 50% are Tamil Brahmins, vs just 2% in India

    The bottom 40% in terms of IQ, such as Muslims, Untouchables and Forest Tribals, are no more than 10% in the US Indian diaspora

    For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower

    Thomm > , August 20, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT

    @rec1man

    For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower

    This is interesting, as it puts paid to the obsession that WN idiots have with 'whiteness'.

    Pakistan is obviously much more Caucasoid than India and certainly Sri Lanka.

    Afghanistan is whiter still. Many in Afghanistan would pass for bona-fide white in the US.

    Yet Sri Lanka is richer than India, which is richer than Pakistan, which is richer than Afghanistan.

    Either Islam is a negative factor that nullifies everything else including genetics, or something else is going on.

    What there is no doubt of is that Asia has been the largest economic region of the world by far except for the brief 200-year deviation (1820-2020), as per that map I posted.

    UtherWhys > , August 20, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT

    @Thomm Weissberg asks, "Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood?"

    Why focus on the LEFT buttock? His point would be as relevant were he to ask, "Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's RIGHT behind in the Hood?" Either way, I smell kinkyness deep within Weissberg's question.

    Saintonge235 > , August 21, 2017 at 12:34 am GMT

    Not protection money. Imperialism.

    "Divide and Rule" said the Romans. Incorporate the potential leaders of those you intend to rule into your hereditary upper class, and the vast majority will stay inert at the least. And many will actively support you. See this post by a black woman: Black Americans: The Organized Left's Expendable Shock Troops .

    People like Cornel West are not only NOT rabble-rousing in the 'hood, they're telling blacks to support the people who actively keep them poor. "Affirmative Action" is designed to sabotage its alleged goals. Almost all who 'benefit' from it end up among people whose performance is clearly superior to their own, thus fostering feelings of inferiority, subtly communicating that it doesn't matter what the 'beneficiary' of AA does, they'll always fail. This is no accident.

    Without AA, there might still be separation, (consider "ultra-orthodox" Jews), but the separate groups would have to be treated with some respect. Really, viewed amorally, it's a marvelous system for oppressing whites and minorities.

    rec1man > , August 21, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT

    @Thomm Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam

    I have data from California National Merit list, IQ-140 bar

    Among Indian Punjabis ;
    Jat Sikh peasants = 3 winners ( 75% of Punjabis in USA )
    Khatri merchants = 18 winners ( 25% of Punjabis in USA )

    Both are extremely caucasoid, both appear heavily among Indian bollywood stars ; genetically very similar, just the evolutionary effect of caste selection for merchant niche vs peasant niche

    MarkinLA > , August 21, 2017 at 1:06 am GMT

    @Russ Nieli Racial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including the elite public universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative.

    But the admissions people immediately started using other dodges like "holistic" admissions policies where they try and figure out if your are a minority from other inferences such as your essay where you indicate "how you have overcome". They also wanted to get rid of the SAT or institute a top X% at each school policy.

    Thomm > , August 21, 2017 at 3:19 am GMT

    @rec1man I don't know . a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels and gas stations. Patels and such..

    They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.

    Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people in India today are not 'Brahmins'..

    Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam

    I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..

    Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism

    rec1man > , August 21, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT

    @Thomm I don't know.... a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels and gas stations. Patels and such..

    They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.

    Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people in India today are not 'Brahmins'..


    Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
    I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..

    Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism... Afghanistan was 33% Hindu, 66% buddhist before islam, but in actual practise lots of overlap between Hinduism and Buddhism, and many families had mixed Indic religions

    Pakistan was 22% non-muslim in 1947, these 22% were higher caste Hindus and Sikhs – all got driven out in 1947 ; Pakistan is low IQ islamic sludge residue of Punjabi society

    I am Tamil speaking, 80% of Tamil brahmins ( 2% ) can be visually distinguished from the 98% Tamil Dravidians ;

    vs

    Tamil dravidian

    Fotosynthesis > , August 21, 2017 at 10:43 am GMT

    Thomm you take up too much oxygen in the room insisting on the importance your opinions, the whole conversation is much more interesting when i skip past your stupid WN focused city boy sheltered viewpoint. Big words and that retarded hehehe thing you do would get you wrastled to the ground and your face rubbed in the dirt

    Truth > , August 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT

    @Fotosynthesis hehehehe

    Truth > , August 21, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

    @rec1man Does anyone want to fill in my comment here in "Miss" Lakshimi?

    Thomm > , August 21, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

    @Fotosynthesis By you and what army?

    Remember, WNs represent the absolute bottom of every desirable trait.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Bill the Kid > , August 21, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT

    @jim jones They look the same because they are all clones of the same body.

    Not Another Unz Commenter > , August 21, 2017 at 10:30 pm GMT

    @Thomm Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians out of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power, would it not? Moreover how are white males who want to escape SJW idiocy going to like a country that still actively enforces all sorts of thought control policies of its own? You wannabe libertardian analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber every time.

    Thomm > , August 21, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT

    @Not Another Unz Commenter

    Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians out of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power, would it not?

    It would be, but WN retards don't think that far.

    You wannabe libertardian analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber every time.

    This is what WNs want, not want I want. It is easy to predict WN opinions.

    Plus, being a libertarian is much more desirable than being a WN socialist. Talented people thrive in a libertarian society. WN losers just want to mooch off of successful whites.

    JohnMc > , August 22, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

    "Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner."

    Really? All that does is give the man a bigger sanctioned soap box. In the ghetto he might affect a couple of hundred people. Siting in academia he gets a lever than can affect tens of thousands. Not a good trade.

    S. B. Woo > , August 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT

    Dear Mr. Weissberg.

    Truth is often stranger than fictions. The real reason for discriminating against Asian Ams is not to help make the other minority happy. It is to benefit the whites. The Ivy League schools are using the diversity to give the white applicants an advantage of 140 pst in SAT points. Please see below:

    In Table 3.5 on p 92 of Princeton Prof. Espenshade's famous book, "No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal", the following shocking fact was revealed:

    Table 3.5 (emphasis added)
    Race Admission Preferences at Public & Private Institutions
    Measured in ACT & SAT Points, Fall 1997
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
    Public Institutions Private Institutions
    ACT-Point Equivalents SAT-Point Equivalents
    Item (out of 36) (out of 1600)
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
    Race
    (White) -- –
    Black 3.8 310
    Hispanics 0.3 130
    Asian -3.4 -140

    Why are 140 SAT pts. taken away from AsAm applicants? To give the white applicants an advantage of 140 SAT pts. over the historically disadvantaged AsAms by using the nobility of diversity as a cover? This is the reverse of affirmative action. This is a gross abuse of affirmation action. This is outrageous discrimination. If
    the purpose is to give the blacks an advantages, why not add more SAT points to blacks and hispanics?

    S.B. Woo

    Incontrovertible > , August 23, 2017 at 4:30 am GMT

    @Avalanche That's an interesting point you brought up, whether anyone can ever really be "assimilated". Even after hundreds of years, blacks and Jews in this country remain very distinct groups. I think for blacks the reason is skin color and culture, while for Jews it is the religion. Both groups have had low out marriage rate until maybe the last couple of decades.

    Assimilation is most successful when there's a high intermarriage rate, but intermarriage rate and immigration rate tend to go in opposite directions. The higher the immigration rate, the lower the intermarriage rate.

    Hispanics and Asians have been in this country since the 1800s yet you rarely ever meet a hispanic or Asian person who's been here for more than 3 or 4 generations. Why is that? I think it's because many of these earlier groups, due to their small number at the time relative to the population, had intermarried, blended in and disappeared. I would say these earlier immigrants have fully assimilated. The ones who are unassimilated are the new arrivals, those who arrived in large numbers since 2000.

    But for some peculiar reason blacks who are mixed with whites often continue to identify as blacks. We see this in Obama, Halle Barry, Vanessa Williams and many other black/white mixes. Black identity is so strong even Indian-black mixed race people call themselves black, like Kamala Harris.

    My theory is that most white-hispanic and white-asian marriages are white males with hispanic/asian females. In most cases the white males who married hispanic/asian women are conservatives who prefer women in cultures that are perceived to be more traditional compared to white females who are often selfish and want a divorce at the first sign of personal unhappiness. Many of them then raise their children in full white traditions including as Christians and encourage them to identify themselves as whites.

    OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances these women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children. Jewish women for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their children as black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves as black.

    Education used to be the biggest tool for assimilation, but these days thanks to libtards running amok, our schools are where racial identity is amplified rather than de-emphasized. Now all minority groups are encouraged to take pride in their own cultural identity and eschew mainstream (white) culture. Lured by affirmative action, more and more mixed race hispanic kids are beginning to identify themselves as latino. Thankfully mixed race Asian kids are running in the opposite direction and now mostly identify themselves as white so they are not disadvantaged by AA.

    I think assimilation can occur when you have low immigration rate coupled with high intermarriage rate and a smart education system that discourages racial and individual identity and focuses on a single national identity. The biggest reason assimilation is failing now is a combination of high immigration rate, and a failed education system that promotes identity politics and victimhood narrative. The internet and easy air travels back to the homeland also make it much harder to assimilate newcomers. For these reasons I'm in favor of a moratorium on immigration for the next 20 years. All those not yet citizens should be encouraged to return to their home countries. No more green cards, work visas or even student visas should be issued.

    Incontrovertible > , August 23, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

    @S. B. Woo That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid. Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively. Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like you are parroting them without thinking things through.

    So much for "smart Asians".

    Truth > , August 24, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

    @Incontrovertible

    OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances these women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children. Jewish women for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their children as black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves as black.

    Yeah, and the rest of them wanted the SCHLONG!

    Truth > , August 24, 2017 at 12:03 am GMT

    @Incontrovertible That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid. Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively. Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like you are parroting them without thinking things through.

    So much for "smart Asians". But they still needed a lower score for admittance than Asians

    [Aug 21, 2017] The impetus to grow and gain size and influence is essential to any political party, and sustaining this inertia overrides the thinking and living of the individual in favor of the coherence of the party itself as a mass;

    Simone Weil definitely does not understands dialectics.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Political parties are a marvellous mechanism which, on the national scale, ensures that not a single mind can attend to the effort of perceiving, in public affairs, what is good, what is just, what is true. As a result – except for a very small number of fortuitous coincidences – nothing is decided, nothing is executed, but measures that run contrary to the public interest, to justice and to truth." ..."
    Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Charles R | Aug 20, 2017 5:44:06 PM | 7

    I have used Simone Weil's " On the Abolition of All Political Parties " in a philosophy class. Her argument, as I'll try to summarize: the impetus to grow and gain size and influence is essential to any political party, and sustaining this inertia overrides the thinking and living of the individual in favor of the coherence of the party itself as a mass; thus, we must eliminate the political party.

    My students found this "contradictory" or "stupid." People, they tell me, will naturally form groups, and because of this the group will operate just like she's claiming parties do, so she's not really saying how to get rid of this. I point out that she's very deliberate to talk about fluids versus crystals, between how things form associations that are fluid , and thus on some issues folks connect on on others they disconnect without the pressure to sustain these changes as a stable identity !she points to literary circles as groups that ebb and flow with members and associations that do not conform to the logic of the political party. These are distinct from associations that are crystal , where aggregation and homogeneity and stable arrangement are more important for the whole to remain itself. So, I take it my students, despite getting up in one class, walking around campus, and sitting down in another class, believe that there is little to no difference in one collection over another so long as the reason for the collection is what defines the collection . (How they take their intuition as expressed in my class and think through intersectionality as expressed in another class is something I was trying, through conversations with them, to work out, because I find it helps me when I find my own intuitions about all of this so very different from theirs.) But I think the implicit part of their reasoning was that all of this dealt with force, the force they feel inside as pressure to conform on the outside with others, who are at this point for them undeniably also undergoing these inward pressures to regulate their outward expression.

    But then I point out that music, or sports, or lovemaking, or dance, or a lot of other ordinary things we do enjoyably with others, show us how to form and move through groups because we share a similar drive or interest in something outside of both of us, and they seem to get that idea. I find myself coming back to this website just to read the comments, because I find it a refreshing change of pace, a host of interesting exchanges, and a good opportunity to face the perennial challenge of sitting within conflict, finding reasonable the disagreeing voice, and owning what makes myself uncomfortable with strangers.

    If enough people share the desire to talk about things from conflicting perspectives, the conversations continue, but as people move in and out, the conversation itself changes and evolves. To shut down the conversation is to lock it in place, to keep it rigid and total. To walk away from the conversation in good spirits, is to hope that it will continue, in some spirit, some form, resembling how it was going before. To walk away from the conversation in bad spirits, is to hope it will change into something that either once was !in which case it can't naturally and so only through artifice! or should be !in which case, being based on the limitations of our own perspective, won't be open for the wonderful possibility of something entirely new and inconceivable happening in a conversation.

    I sometimes wish politics were just conversations. I found Hannah Arendt to be one of the few thinkers who set the terms in such a way that I was liberated. Leftist thinking taught me a lot about fashion, I didn't realize until later. Paleoconservative thinking taught me a lot about how much either gets suppressed or gathers dust in the libraries, and yet still smolders underneath the haunted foundations of our civilization. I come back to Zhuangzi over and over again. I come back to these rambling conversations under heaven, over earth, within the noosphere.

    But eventually the conversation does end, and you have to hammer a nail to keep the walls up. Winter is coming. Wood needs cutting. Grains need grounding. Papers need grading.

    PavewayIV | Aug 20, 2017 10:19:52 PM | 17

    Charles R@7 - Well said, Charles R. I loved this quote from Weil's book in one of the reviews of On the Abolition of All Political Parties :

    "Political parties are a marvellous mechanism which, on the national scale, ensures that not a single mind can attend to the effort of perceiving, in public affairs, what is good, what is just, what is true. As a result – except for a very small number of fortuitous coincidences – nothing is decided, nothing is executed, but measures that run contrary to the public interest, to justice and to truth."

    Not sure I'm sold on eliminating them - this is another call to kill some of the existing victims in a futile effort to eliminate an infectious disease that permeates public affairs. It will irritate power- and control-seeking psychopaths temporarily. Political parties are just a convenient 'easy' button for them.

    US society's problem is a child-like belief in some kind of magical innate integrity of organizations that feed us public affairs 'information' despite those organizations being obvious targets for exploitation. Part of psychopath's successful control and exploitation of the public is to obscure the fact that they are being controlled and exploited.

    It's lonely here in tin-foil hat land, but I'm starting to see more visitors. I think our 'Taco Tuesday' promotion is starting to pay dividends!

    psychohistorian | Aug 20, 2017 10:49:30 PM | 20

    @ PavewayIV with his Taco Tuesday Tin Foil Hat promotion in response to Charles R@7 comment about political parties

    I am reminded of the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers as Chauncy Gardner. Chauncy Gardner has spent enough of his life inside so that when forced out on the street he carries a TV remote control and tries to change the channel when the situation starts to get dicey......Unfortunately, I see most Americans responding like Chauncy Gardner and keep banging on their TV remotes hoping the reality they see changes.

    Does Waco Wednesday follow Taco Tuesday? or are you staying with a food meme?

    [Aug 20, 2017] Trump used the neocon expression "drain the swamp" on the campaign trail. He was talking about washington while the neocons were referring to the near Mid-East. Both he they were full of hubris. The swamp dwellers in DC can not be extricated short of revolution.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I don't think the neocons want Trump out. They want him to stay as their puppet. If he fights back and start to win then they will do everything to replace him. ..."
    "... Now with the departure of the strong anti-neocon Steve Bannon, Trump is loosing more chances to resist. Getting back his strength would be a miracle. If Trump realizes that he has lost all power and all ways to regain it, he may want to resign and be replaced by Pence who is a weak leader. Yet Pence may object to more wars that the neocons will promote and he could pose a problem for them. ..."
    "... This is why I think the neocons and the zionists want to keep a powerless Trump in 'power' ..."
    "... any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ..."
    "... Coincidentally, I was just thinking the very same thing today. US conventional forces are basically worthless and would be quickly destroyed if put to the test in any general mobilization. Our nuclear deterrence is everything. Nobody will lay a finger on our aircraft carriers for fear of provoking Armageddon, so these lumbering hunks of expensive horseshit get to float around the world "projecting force" when, without the nuclear cover, they would be sent to the bottom without much ado. ..."
    "... This last 6 months has been, in my opinion, a classic case of the result of cognitive dissonance that occurs when prophecy fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails ..."
    "... The whole Russia-Gate thing is slowly being exposed as a hoax but we may still have a case of "some stories are true that never happened." A huge number of people will never think of Trump anyway other than how they do now no matter what he does or what happens – as evil, or incompetent, or immoral, or whatever. ..."
    "... I think we have been in a very slow, shallow decline since about 1969. Barely noticeable. Bursts of innovation and growth have distracted the country from the fact that the standard of living for 80% of everybody has not really improved. It is unlikely that Trump will reverse this. ..."
    "... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem ..."
    "... Trump might be a clown show but he will be in the WH on January 1 2021. The political and legal obstacles for his removal are substantial. Perhaps he hasn't drained the swamp but he stopped funding for the Jihadis in Syria, which has essentially ended the war there. He has dramatically improved border security and he obtained a SC nominee who is not left wing crazy as the previous two. ..."
    "... Not all neo-cons are Jewish and not all Jewish people are neo-cons. Similarly, not all Zionists are Jewish and not all Jewish persons are Zionists. ..."
    Aug 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Robert Magill , August 18, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT

    This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

    And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

    Stalin found a way to stop the prototype Neocon Leon Trotsky.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Seamus Padraig , August 18, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

    @Robert Magill

    This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

    And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

    Stalin found a way to stop the prototype Neocon Leon Trotsky.

    True enough. But then, Stalin had control of the party and the country. Alas! Trump does not.

    Sean , August 18, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

    America throws its weight about but that won't lead to war. No danger at all of anyone taking on the unbeatable US with nuclear or conventional force. Russia's doctrine stresses asymmetrical war because the understand shadow boxing is safer. And while the world economic system is dependent on America, it isn't going to collapse because of a few riots–especially with the massive police apparatus that is in reserve.

    There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.

    Neocons are not different to anyone in history who had to take care of a state's business. It would be irrational for a state like the US not to lead with its strengths and be aggressive with because no one knows what other state's intentions are – or might become in the future.

    WorkingClass , August 18, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT

    @WorkingClass

    "The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs."

    Here is the closest thing to a list of names that google turned up:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450257-The-Neoconservative-Reference-List

    Johnny Rico , August 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT

    Sure.

    You may be simply be reaching a personal tipping-point from all the fear-mongering and apocalyptic race-war/civil-war nonsense that has had its ups-and-downs the last year-and-a-half, but which has hit record heights after Charlottesville. Hysterical group-think.

    You have always been a "predictor." Laying out various scenarios and then going back every few months to try to fit what you said to what happened. This can quickly become self-deluded back-patting.

    You have been correct I think in certain respects and your analysis has usually been top-notch even if it doesn't always cover all angles.

    But your record forecasting or predicting is just as bad as everybody else's. We can't predict. Not the price of oil. Not the lottery. Not the Super-bowl. Not the weather more than 5 days out. Not war. And not war's unintended consequences.

    Three weeks ago nobody cared about Southern statues or White Supremacists. Two weeks from now nobody will care anymore again. Two weeks ago we were going to nuke North Korea. Now they are not in the news.

    Imagine if that one girl hadn't been killed by that one guy at the protest or counter-protest. It doesn't even matter. Nobody will remember her name in a month. But everybody knows who Kim Kardashian is.

    This last 6 months has been, in my opinion, a classic case of the result of cognitive dissonance that occurs when prophecy fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

    The prophecy in this case was that Trump was the next Hitler. This and the lingering, very strong sour grapes.

    The whole Russia-Gate thing is slowly being exposed as a hoax but we may still have a case of "some stories are true that never happened." A huge number of people will never think of Trump anyway other than how they do now no matter what he does or what happens – as evil, or incompetent, or immoral, or whatever.

    I am rather partial to Andrew Bacevich's analysis that suggests Trump is actually apolitical and non-ideological.

    I think we have been in a very slow, shallow decline since about 1969. Barely noticeable. Bursts of innovation and growth have distracted the country from the fact that the standard of living for 80% of everybody has not really improved. It is unlikely that Trump will reverse this. People have been predicting collapse for decades. Read James Howard Kunstler. http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/total-eclipse/ . It kind of happened in 2008-2009. Look at the current collapse of large parts of the retail sector.

    Not surprisingly, few are predicting Trump will be in office in 2020 and that the world will look a lot like 2007 at that point. But that is where my money is.

    If "Antifa" continues to wear wear black ninja outfits and masks and continues to use violence, the State will have to crush them.

    Same old, same old. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Something like that.

    I live in Boston. I was 100 yards away from the first bomb that went off at the 2013 Marathon. I saw the National Security State response over the next week. The State Police with a LOT of support did not mess around. Over the years I have seen how the Boston and State police deal with protests and gatherings of all types. Boston is a very safe city. It is difficult to envision what happened in Charlottesville happening here.

    Lawrence Fitton , August 18, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT

    Trump used the neocon expression 'drain the swamp' on the campaign trail. he was talking about washington while the neocons were referring to the near & mid-east. both he & they were full of hubris.

    The swamp dwellers in d.c. can't be extricated short of revolution. the mid-east is in chaos thanks to the neocons and the swamp is getting, well, swampier. trump has no plans to get us out of the mess the neocons got us in even if he could. this adds to trump's incompetence, which when applied to his mental cardboard jungle, bodes ill for america under his term – if he serves it out.

    I tend to agree with everything the saker wrote. we are in trouble folks. obama & bush left trump with a mess. trump has not the wherewithal to get us out. but, realistically, who can?

    There is a middle eastern expression that goes something like this: one fool can create problem that 100 wise men can't solve.
    trump is a clown show. he's gotta go. the problem is, then we get pence.

    DFH , August 19, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

    Has any empire ever had a ruling class as stupid (I'm talking about the gentiles in particular) as the current one?

    virgile , August 19, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

    I don't think the neocons want Trump out. They want him to stay as their puppet. If he fights back and start to win then they will do everything to replace him.

    Now with the departure of the strong anti-neocon Steve Bannon, Trump is loosing more chances to resist. Getting back his strength would be a miracle. If Trump realizes that he has lost all power and all ways to regain it, he may want to resign and be replaced by Pence who is a weak leader. Yet Pence may object to more wars that the neocons will promote and he could pose a problem for them.

    This is why I think the neocons and the zionists want to keep a powerless Trump in 'power'

    Fran Macadam , August 19, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT

    You'd think the neocons were – shudder – Trotskyists, or something.

    Priss Factor , August 19, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT

    I think I know what the globalist capitalists are doing. It's not that they like Antifa. I think they despise them. But they do fear the antifa and far-'left' thugs. And they also fear BLM.

    After all, NY Libs fear blacks. NY libs got so tired of black crime that they elected Clinton to lock up record number of blacks. They elected Giuliani twice to get tough on black crime. And three times they elected Bloomberg of 'stop and frisk' fame. And San Fran and other cities did a lot of gentrification, which is codeword for pushing blacks out.

    The fact is the capitalists have NOTHING to fear from Alt Right or 'nazis' or white identitarians. White Identitarians don't rob white yuppies. They don't do knockout games. They don't smash windows or burn down buildings. They don't protest businesses. They didn't even do the 'antisemitic hate hoaxes'. It turns out a black guy and Jews carried out those hoaxes. (When Trump truthfully said Jews may be behind some of those bomb threats, the media went ballistic until the truth came out. Same with Charlottesville. Trump's crime was noticing that the Antifa scum attacked first, a fact.)

    But capitalists do fear blacks who loot, riot, and turn cities into hell. Capitalists fear antifa bottom-feeders who create havoc in places like San Fran and Seattle. If Capitalists really really feared Alt Right and White Identitarians, they would NOT be purging them. Purging is done to the weak, not to the strong. Capitalists appease whom they fear, not whom they have nothing to fear from.

    So, capitalists wanna do something about antifa and BLM constantly barking at them.

    Now, why can't the globo-cappers just use their wealth and power to harshly clamp down on antifa and black thugs? After all, they got all the power whereas most antifa are bottomfeeding scum and most blacks are just street thugs. If the rich and powerful wanted to crack antifa skulls and lock up more blacks, they could. So, why don't they? Because PC dogma rules over America, and it romanticizes the 'left' in media and academia and pop culture. And blacks have been so sacralized to prop up 'white guilt' that it's difficult to move harshly against them. We have to indulge their idiocies and use more roundabout ways to control them.

    And this is where 'nazi' and 'confederacy' are very useful to the Capits or Cappers. If Capits yell, "Look, a Nazi" or "Look, a racist", the very antifa and BLM who were growling at the capits suddenly go charging at the 'nazis'.
    This is why Jewish supremacists also find the South so useful. Jewish Supremacists pull every dirty trick in the book to lock up blacks and use extra-policing to control black crime and violence. Also, Jews are no longer for class conflict favoring the proles against the rich and instead for elite global capitalism where Jews get richer. So, Jewish Power is the natural target of blacks and far-leftists. To prevent these people from coming at Jews, Jews create hysteria about KKK and the Sooooouth as diversionary tactic.

    It's like, if a mad dog is barking at you, it's smart to toss a bone so that the dog will go after the bone, not you.

    So, this isn't really so much a Capit war on Alt Right. It is the Capitalists using the Alt Right as a bone to throw at the dogs(blacks and far-left scum) so that the dogs won't bark and bite at Capitalists.

    ... ... ...

    DFH , August 19, 2017 at 9:15 pm GMT

    @Priss Factor I think I know what the globalist capitalists are doing. It's not that they like Antifa. I think they despise them. But they do fear the antifa and far-'left' thugs. And they also fear BLM.

    After all, NY Libs fear blacks. NY libs got so tired of black crime that they elected Clinton to lock up record number of blacks. They elected Giuliani twice to get tough on black crime. And three times they elected Bloomberg of 'stop and frisk' fame. And San Fran and other cities did a lot of gentrification, which is codeword for pushing blacks out.

    The fact is the capitalists have NOTHING to fear from Alt Right or 'nazis' or white identitarians. White Identitarians don't rob white yuppies. They don't do knockout games. They don't smash windows or burn down buildings. They don't protest businesses. They didn't even do the 'antisemitic hate hoaxes'. It turns out a black guy and Jews carried out those hoaxes. (When Trump truthfully said Jews may be behind some of those bomb threats, the media went ballistic... until the truth came out. Same with Charlottesville. Trump's crime was noticing that the Antifa scum attacked first, a fact.)

    But capitalists do fear blacks who loot, riot, and turn cities into hell. Capitalists fear antifa bottom-feeders who create havoc in places like San Fran and Seattle. If Capitalists really really feared Alt Right and White Identitarians, they would NOT be purging them. Purging is done to the weak, not to the strong. Capitalists appease whom they fear, not whom they have nothing to fear from.

    So, capitalists wanna do something about antifa and BLM constantly barking at them.

    Now, why can't the globo-cappers just use their wealth and power to harshly clamp down on antifa and black thugs? After all, they got all the power whereas most antifa are bottomfeeding scum and most blacks are just street thugs. If the rich and powerful wanted to crack antifa skulls and lock up more blacks, they could. So, why don't they? Because PC dogma rules over America, and it romanticizes the 'left' in media and academia and pop culture. And blacks have been so sacralized to prop up 'white guilt' that it's difficult to move harshly against them. We have to indulge their idiocies and use more roundabout ways to control them.

    And this is where 'nazi' and 'confederacy' are very useful to the Capits or Cappers. If Capits yell, "Look, a Nazi" or "Look, a racist", the very antifa and BLM who were growling at the capits suddenly go charging at the 'nazis'.

    This is why Jewish supremacists also find the South so useful. Jewish Supremacists pull every dirty trick in the book to lock up blacks and use extra-policing to control black crime and violence. Also, Jews are no longer for class conflict favoring the proles against the rich and instead for elite global capitalism where Jews get richer. So, Jewish Power is the natural target of blacks and far-leftists. To prevent these people from coming at Jews, Jews create hysteria about KKK and the Sooooouth as diversionary tactic.

    It's like, if a mad dog is barking at you, it's smart to toss a bone so that the dog will go after the bone, not you.

    So, this isn't really so much a Capit war on Alt Right. It is the Capitalists using the Alt Right as a bone to throw at the dogs(blacks and far-left scum) so that the dogs won't bark and bite at Capitalists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dIlOAWsh-A

    Now, the Jewish supremacists are far nastier. If Capitalists just wanna distract the mad barking dogs, Jewish supremacists want to use Antifa and State terror as hunting dogs to kill the wolves of White Independent Movement.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIwWa-WkCak

    So, what is the solution? If Alt Right doesn't want the cappers to treat it so shabbily, it has to make the cappers FEAR the Alt Right? How?

    Alt Right should write up a BLACK BOOK on every capper that goes after Alt Right.

    Write a BLACK BOOK ON GOOGLE like Black Book on Communism. Expose how Google has worked with every thuggish and tyrannical regime around for profit.

    Write a BLACK BOOK ON PAYPAL that details how this organization serves all kinds of terrorists, tyrants, extremists, and etc.

    Expose the cappers. March on capper headquarters.

    If Alt Right goes after the cappers, Antifa will have to defend them.. and this will discredit Antifa as stooges of Globalism.

    It's like when Alt Right opposed Trump's attack in Syria, Antifa made fools of themselves by attacking Alt Right than opposing the Missile strike on trumped-up charges. (The media were totally swooning about the naked act of US imperialist aggression. Zakaria said, 'Trump became president tonight', and Brian Williams was yammering about 'beautiful missiles' and quoting Leonard Cohen.) Sickos. That thesis doesn't make any sense. If they were afraid of antifascists then why would they create and finance them? Why does their media stoke up black resentment if that is what they wish to avoid?

    Why should they be afraid of them? Black crime doesn't affect rich whites. Even if it did, blacks are criminals for prosaic reasons that have nothing to do with BLM. Black riots have no effect on billionaire capitalists either. Its not rich white communities they burn down.

    jilles dykstra , August 20, 2017 at 6:13 am GMT

    Indeed, the present Cold Civil War in the USA has world wide ramifications. But what would have happened had FDR's policies been continued ?

    The USA is in the midst of a political revolution, revolutions seldom improve living conditions. A political revolution in the power that led the world since the Casablanca conference, where Churchill discovered he had ran into a trap, is a political revolution in the world.

    Intelligent Dasein , • Website August 20, 2017 at 7:03 am GMT

    The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place).

    I found this line to be a somewhat mystifying exception to an otherwise fine article, unless The Saker is referring specifically to Ron Paul, whose criticisms of the administration have been spot on lately. But in the main, "US libertarians" have about as much brains as a puddle of dog drool (cf. Gary "And what is Aleppo" Johnson for illumination on this point).

    any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit

    Coincidentally, I was just thinking the very same thing today. US conventional forces are basically worthless and would be quickly destroyed if put to the test in any general mobilization. Our nuclear deterrence is everything. Nobody will lay a finger on our aircraft carriers for fear of provoking Armageddon, so these lumbering hunks of expensive horseshit get to float around the world "projecting force" when, without the nuclear cover, they would be sent to the bottom without much ado.

    This cannot help but infuriate anybody who has been the target of a US intervention. I can begin to imagine how this obscene pageantry must appear to non-Western eyes -- perhaps something like having a gun held to your head whilst an ill-mannered, fat princeling trashes your house for amusement. I can imagine the bitter resentment they must feel, tempered by the certain knowledge that they will overcome through time and patience as the Empire destroys itself with its hubris. Their retribution, when it comes, will be terrible. This is why we should have made every effort to withdraw from the word stage and defend our limes while we still could.

    white noise , August 20, 2017 at 11:09 am GMT

    @WorkingClass "The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs.

    Yeah, and then publish the list in CNN, Fox, Washington Post, et al Sure, tomorrow morning, they all will be happy to comply. They may even agree to start a massive vilification campaign against themselves.

    white noise , August 20, 2017 at 11:27 am GMT

    @Johnny Rico Sure.

    You may be simply be reaching a personal tipping-point from all the fear-mongering and apocalyptic race-war/civil-war nonsense that has had its ups-and-downs the last year-and-a-half, but which has hit record heights after Charlottesville. Hysterical group-think.

    You have always been a "predictor." Laying out various scenarios and then going back every few months to try to fit what you said to what happened. This can quickly become self-deluded back-patting.

    You have been correct I think in certain respects and your analysis has usually been top-notch even if it doesn't always cover all angles.

    But your record forecasting or predicting is just as bad as everybody else's. We can't predict. Not the price of oil. Not the lottery. Not the Super-bowl. Not the weather more than 5 days out. Not war. And not war's unintended consequences.

    Three weeks ago nobody cared about Southern statues or White Supremacists. Two weeks from now nobody will care anymore again. Two weeks ago we were going to nuke North Korea. Now they are not in the news.

    Imagine if that one girl hadn't been killed by that one guy at the protest or counter-protest. It doesn't even matter. Nobody will remember her name in a month. But everybody knows who Kim Kardashian is.

    This last 6 months has been, in my opinion, a classic case of the result of cognitive dissonance that occurs when prophecy fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

    The prophecy in this case was that Trump was the next Hitler. This and the lingering, very strong sour grapes.

    The whole Russia-Gate thing is slowly being exposed as a hoax but we may still have a case of "some stories are true that never happened." A huge number of people will never think of Trump anyway other than how they do now no matter what he does or what happens – as evil, or incompetent, or immoral, or whatever.

    I am rather partial to Andrew Bacevich's analysis that suggests Trump is actually apolitical and non-ideological.

    I think we have been in a very slow, shallow decline since about 1969. Barely noticeable. Bursts of innovation and growth have distracted the country from the fact that the standard of living for 80% of everybody has not really improved. It is unlikely that Trump will reverse this.

    People have been predicting collapse for decades. Read James Howard Kunstler. http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/total-eclipse/

    It kind of happened in 2008-2009. Look at the current collapse of large parts of the retail sector.

    Not surprisingly, few are predicting Trump will be in office in 2020 and that the world will look a lot like 2007 at that point. But that is where my money is.

    If "Antifa" continues to wear wear black ninja outfits and masks and continues to use violence, the State will have to crush them.

    Same old, same old. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Something like that.

    I live in Boston. I was 100 yards away from the first bomb that went off at the 2013 Marathon. I saw the National Security State response over the next week. The State Police with a LOT of support did not mess around. Over the years I have seen how the Boston and State police deal with protests and gatherings of all types. Boston is a very safe city. It is difficult to envision what happened in Charlottesville happening here. It may not be an accurate prediction, but this article by The Saker is excellent in that it gives a very accurate, penetrating portrait of the decadence of America, and the main culprits, the predator, parasitic Jews, and their minions: the American politicians, and other assorted traitors.

    And so, are you saying that a repressive police state is good? It's certainly going that way, but no, it's not good at all for the people of America. What America needs is repression against the invader Jews that have hijacked the government, not repression against the American people.

    jacques sheete , August 20, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

    A bit windy, but every point excellent.

    There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem

    True, but it's astonishing how so many people still don't get it.

    jacques sheete , August 20, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

    @WorkingClass "The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs.

    "The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs.

    Damn. I've said this before, but you make the best damned comments on UR, and you hit the nail squarely on the head once again with that one.

    white noise , August 20, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT

    @Felix Keverich

    "How come a president, who won 65 million votes, cannot get a single man in his administration who shares his political views?"

    ...because weak people sell their souls easily in exchange of money and goods. And there are a lot of weak people.

    jacques sheete , August 20, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

    @WorkingClass A list should be easy to develop.

    In Jacques' Paradise anyone still living who's ever run for political office, and their staffs and advisers would be rounded up, they and any offspring spayed, and sent to Abu Ghraib for lifelong "treatment." This goes for anyone who's ever been connected, in any way, with the Federal Reserve or any other large bank or corporation especially one that's been bailed out. Ditto for any foreign "leader" who's ever accepted a penny in foreign "aid," or who's ever had a standing ovation or any other sort of positive recognition from the US government.

    Anyone who ever worked for any government past the age of thirty ( some allowance should be made for youthful ignorance and indiscretion, no?) and anyone who ever contributed so much as a nickel to a political party gets rounded up, spayed, and sent to Guantanamo for life with no chance for parole.

    That oughta buy the rest of us a couple of days of peace and quiet.

    Si1ver1ock , August 20, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT

    This is a very good article. I would quibble on a minor thing about North Korea. They could definitely cause problems with their nukes via the old "Death Shroud" technique from Dr. Strangelove.

    North Korea doesn't need ICBMs. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252

    On more humorous note:

    The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.

    WJ , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

    @Lawrence Fitton

    Trump might be a clown show but he will be in the WH on January 1 2021. The political and legal obstacles for his removal are substantial. Perhaps he hasn't drained the swamp but he stopped funding for the Jihadis in Syria, which has essentially ended the war there. He has dramatically improved border security and he obtained a SC nominee who is not left wing crazy as the previous two.

    I am not convinced he will substantially escalate Afghanistan but we will find out perhaps this week. He is vastly superior to at least three of predecessors in the job and he is most certainly preferable to the horrendous Clinton/Kaine, open borders neocon clan.

    Blake , August 20, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

    George W. Bush once asked his father to define Neoconservatism. "'What's a neocon?' 'Do you want names, or a description?' answered [the elder Bush]. 'Description.' 'Well,' said the former president of the United States, 'I'll give it to you in one word: Israel.'" – Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy (New York: Scribner, 2007), 219.

    DFH , August 20, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT

    @Tulips

    Not all neo-cons are Jewish and not all Jewish people are neo-cons. Similarly, not all Zionists are Jewish and not all Jewish persons are Zionists.

    And? Neo-conservatism is a Jewish ideology; it was founded and driven by Jews as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests.

    Commenters with these reactions to Saker's essay should maybe introspect a little on what is running in the minds and emotions.

    Isn't the appropriate response to look at the facts of the matter to determine whether opposition to Jewish influence is justified or not? What does introspection have to do with anything?

    [Aug 18, 2017] The Corporate fascist - with grains of salt - USA. The democracy part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the organised/fake elections, to attempt some kind of readjustement - renewal - reset...

    Ethnic nationalism rises when the state and the nation experience economic difficulties. Weimar republic is a classic example here.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft. ..."
    "... The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility. ..."
    "... Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out. ..."
    "... "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes." ..."
    "... Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm. ..."
    "... The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk ..."
    "... The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating ŕ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc. ..."
    Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Tay | Aug 18, 2017 6:56:05 AM | 82

    The US has no problem generating wealth, and has no need to force conflict with China. The US's problem is that that wealth is funneled upwards. Wealth inequality is not a meme. "Shrinking middle class" is a euphemism for downward-mobility of the middle class, an historical incubator for Reaction. And that's what we have here, reactionaries from a middle class background who now are earning less than their parents at menial jobs, or who are unemployed, becoming goons; aping the klan, appropriating nazi icons, blaming the foreigner, the negro, the Jew, the Muslim, for their circumstances. A "trade war" will not help them one iota, it will make their lives worse, and Bannon will go out and say it's the fault of the foreigner and the immigrant, their numbers wool swell. More terror, depper culture wars. I suppose that's nationalism to some people.

    Grieved | Aug 18, 2017 9:51:21 AM | 83

    @82 Tay

    That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft.

    The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility.

    Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out.

    Since we're looking for the grown-ups, let's turn to Vladimir Putin, always reliable for sanity when direction is lost.

    Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.

    -- Putin reminds that "patriotism drastically differs from nationalism"

    somebody | Aug 18, 2017 11:00:25 AM | 86
    83
    Upward mobility has fallen sharply
    "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes."

    Interventions worth considering include universal preschool and greater access to public universities, increasing the minimum wage, and offering vouchers to help families with kids move from poor neighborhoods into areas with better schools and more resources, they said.

    Is there any political party or group in the US that suggests this?

    Noirette | Aug 18, 2017 11:56:04 AM | 90
    The Corporate "fascist" - with grains of salt - USA. The 'democracy' part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the \organised/ fake elections, to attempt some kind of re-adjustement - renewal - re-set - review...

    Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm.

    Heh, the profits of domination are to be organised, extracted and distributed, differently. One Mafia-type tribe taking over from another! Ivanka will be The Sweet First Woman Prezzie! Style, Heart, Love, Looks! Go!

    The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk, so they are activating all - anything to attack. The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating ŕ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc.

    [Aug 14, 2017] American dream as example of propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw). ..."
    September 11, 2016

    SolontoCroesus > , September 11, 2016 at 3:53 pm GMT

    @Seamus Padraig

    1) The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House
    In this case, I'd have to disagree. When I examine the bizarre events of the 2000 election in hindsight, it seems likely that someone was absolutely determined to get Bush into the White House at all costs, probably so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could appoint all the neocons to neutralize the Pentagon and the CIA, leaving the country ripe for attack.
    Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both.
    I strongly agree with this statement. Mossad did 9/11: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.
    It's like George Carlin said: "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
    In spite of it all, the 9/11 Truth movement has had a huge victory: it has basically forced the US government to admit that explosives were used to bring down WTC7!
    The owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, admitted that he deliberately brought down building 7 through controlled demolition, even though the exact justification he offered is implausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be

    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.

    small point in your overall pic, Saker, but annoying as hell:

    The American Dream is a trope invented by Jews & Hollywood, or maybe Jews in the Bernays influenced PR world. take a look at Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood

    coordinate the rise of holocaustism with the increase in the use of the term, American dream

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=american+dream&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Camerican%20dream%3B%2Cc0

    The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw).

    Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin did not "pledge their lives, their fortune, their sacred honor" for the American Dream.

    Intelligent Dasein > , Website September 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm GMT

    @Erebus I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?

    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.

    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.

    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters. Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about!vanity and anarchy. Truther's beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist (for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your little catalog of epithets.

    This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You, sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik, another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.

    But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of acknowledging that!gasp!!their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.

    What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding the sanctity of the federal government.

    But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men!be it the Constitution "as written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy!really are pure and perfect as the driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them: enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought is but the mirror image of the thinker.

    But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.

    [Aug 14, 2017] the USA is somewhat similar to the USSR: it is ruled by a Nomenklatura , an Inner Party to use Orwells expression, which keeps the rest of the 99 pecent in a condition that I would describe as semi-serfdom by The Saker

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not that I believe that there is much of a difference between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats (Pepsi vs Cola, really), but this simply illustrates two basic facts of the US political system: ..."
    "... The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House ..."
    "... In a way, the USA is very similar to the bad old Soviet Union: it is ruled by a Nomenklatura , an " Inner Party " to use Orwell's expression, which keeps the rest of the 99% in a condition that I would describe as semi-serfdom ("semi" because the modern serf can legally leave his place of labor and move to another one). And while the real "deep state" is only a small sub-section of the US Nomenklatura, the entire Nomenklatura is bound to it by a deep sense of class solidarity. ..."
    Sep 11, 2016 | www.unz.com
    402 Comments

    Not that I believe that there is much of a difference between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats (Pepsi vs Cola, really), but this simply illustrates two basic facts of the US political system:

    1. The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House
    2. The US "deep state" is equally embedded in both factions of the "1% Party" in power

    In a way, the USA is very similar to the bad old Soviet Union: it is ruled by a Nomenklatura , an " Inner Party " to use Orwell's expression, which keeps the rest of the 99% in a condition that I would describe as semi-serfdom ("semi" because the modern serf can legally leave his place of labor and move to another one). And while the real "deep state" is only a small sub-section of the US Nomenklatura, the entire Nomenklatura is bound to it by a deep sense of class solidarity.

    This is what primarily explains the collective blindness of quite literally all the US elites about 9/11: just like everybody now knows that Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman, most people by now suspect that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a stupid load of hogwash – but they just don't see what difference it makes for them and the world they live in.

    [Aug 14, 2017] American dream as example of propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw). ..."
    September 11, 2016

    SolontoCroesus > , September 11, 2016 at 3:53 pm GMT

    @Seamus Padraig

    1) The US "deep state" is not affected by changes in the White House
    In this case, I'd have to disagree. When I examine the bizarre events of the 2000 election in hindsight, it seems likely that someone was absolutely determined to get Bush into the White House at all costs, probably so that Cheney and Rumsfeld could appoint all the neocons to neutralize the Pentagon and the CIA, leaving the country ripe for attack.
    Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both.
    I strongly agree with this statement. Mossad did 9/11: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.
    It's like George Carlin said: "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
    In spite of it all, the 9/11 Truth movement has had a huge victory: it has basically forced the US government to admit that explosives were used to bring down WTC7!
    The owner of the WTC, Larry Silverstein, admitted that he deliberately brought down building 7 through controlled demolition, even though the exact justification he offered is implausible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk&feature=youtu.be

    Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.

    small point in your overall pic, Saker, but annoying as hell:

    The American Dream is a trope invented by Jews & Hollywood, or maybe Jews in the Bernays influenced PR world. take a look at Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood

    coordinate the rise of holocaustism with the increase in the use of the term, American dream

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=american+dream&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Camerican%20dream%3B%2Cc0

    The American Dream meme is not as American as apple pie, it's a relatively recent invention and a vacuous one at that. It functions to keep Americans from taking action upon confronting the distortions Erebus spelled out in #34 (great comment, btw).

    Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, Franklin did not "pledge their lives, their fortune, their sacred honor" for the American Dream.

    Intelligent Dasein > , Website September 11, 2016 at 3:58 pm GMT

    @Erebus I've long been an admirer of Thomas Kuhn's.

    Indeed, humans live a narrative that continuously tells them who they are, the world they live in, and their and everybody/everything else's place in it.
    I've often thought that the "truther" versions of 9/11 don't get traction not because they don''t make physical sense, but precisely because they do. I've watched competent professionals, confronted with mathematical proof (that they sometimes worked out for themselves), look from side to side in obvious discomfort and then reject it wholesale using some semi-religious psycho-babble argument like "Nobody could be that evil"....

    Why?

    Well, a part of the answer is that to acknowledge the facts is to also face an life changing decision. That is, whether one is OK with the fact that one's "betters" just murdered 3000 of your compatriots with absolute impunity, or not.

    If not, a moral imperative stares one in the face. One has to go Che Guevara and fight this evil with every fibre of his being, at the cost of one's career, home, (probably) family and any hopes & dreams one may have had for a comfortable, long life.

    The shame of shirking the moral imperative, that one is OK with one's "betters" murdering how ever many they like of ones compatriots, is to admit to cowardice and henceforth to live an unprincipled, grovelling existence at the whim of those "betters".

    Nobody will thank the truther for putting them in that position. And, the smarter they are the worse they react. So, their internal narratives build defences in an earnest desperation, scorning the truth they themselves worked out and casting all other plain facts out the window. No obfuscatory, prevaricating, question-begging, word-mincing tactic will go untried as the lifelong narrative desperately tries to save itself.

    That's humans for ya, and the "betters" know it well. That's how they got to be betters. Your comment, gold box and all, is exactly the kind of oblivious, preachy, self-righteous bullshit that proves what the Truthers are really all about!vanity and anarchy. Truther's beliefs are a method of self-aggrandizement that allows them to feel superior to the rest of the world; that is to say, to the great unwashed masses whom they accuse of believing "the official version," regardless of what such people actually believe or whether they even exist (for the facts do not matter; it's all about the melodrama with you, anyway), and whom you libel as cowards, ignorant, government shills, "sheeple," and other choice terms from your little catalog of epithets.

    This act of deprecation is your real objective. It provides the little power-fixes, little dopamine rushes, that allow you to feel oh-so dominant and in-the-know. "Look how much better I am than all these ignorant sheeple," you say to yourself. It also provides you with every excuse you need to ignore your civic responsibilities and mock society's institutions whenever doing so would be convenient for you. After all, society is unjust and all those institutions are just serving the deep state and shilling for the "official version." You, sir, have found a civic loophole. You get to enjoy the benefits of living in the commonwealth while denigrating and flouting it at the same time. You're just a Jacobin, a Bolshevik, another liberal revolutionary cloaked in a different ideology.

    But let's look at your specific claim the majority of people simply cannot accept "what really happened" on 9/11 because that would entail the psychologically impossible task of acknowledging that!gasp!!their own government murdered 3,000 people in a false flag incident that set the backdrop for the roll-out of the War on Terror.

    What kind of a mouth-breathing idiot do you have to be to make such a claim? It simply doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at history reveals that governments have been slaughtering people on a large scale, for all kinds of reasons, since the very beginning of time, and yet that fact seems to have been acknowledged without any attendant epidemic of cognitive dissonance. Why should it be any more difficult to believe that our government would kill 3000 Americans in our own time if it suited its purposes? Given the fact that the US deep state is one of the most corrupt, feckless, and downright byzantine organizations to ever exist, I have no trouble at all believing such a thing, except for the minor fact that it did not happen. I certainly am not impeded by any unrealistic, juvenile hangups regarding the sanctity of the federal government.

    But I suspect that you are. I suspect that you think , somewhere deep inside, that whatever powers ought to be governing the affairs of men!be it the Constitution "as written," or some sort of Randian libertarian fantasy!really are pure and perfect as the driven snow, and therefore it required an act of unsurpassed dastardliness to obscure them: enter 9/11 "Truth." I suspect that you think yourself to be quite above reproach, and that your adherence to 9/11 "Truth" gives you a sense of permanent absolution from all past and future guilt. And I further suspect that the nefarious plots and subterfuges you project upon The Powers That Be are precisely the sort of acts you yourself would commit if you held their high station. Your feigned moral indignation at them is really just a histrionic facade, as moral indignation always is. You don't hate them. You don't even really fear them. You covet them. Your only outrage arises from the fact that someone else got to do them and you did not. Therefore belief in "Truth" is an existential necessity of yours. It is the sacrament by which you hypostatically unite yourself with everything you desire. All thought is but the mirror image of the thinker.

    But in reality it is all a lie. 9/11 was not a false flag. It really was a terrorist attack, the fact that the government responded with a hamfisted acceleration of the security state, and by bombing the Middle East into a quagmire, notwithstanding.

    [Aug 12, 2017] Here's the memo that blew up the National Security Council

    Aug 12, 2017 | www.businessinsider.com

    Political Warfare NSC memo by Brett LoGiurato on Scribd

    The memo at the heart of the latest blowup at the National Security Council paints a dark picture of media, academics, the "deep state," and other enemies allegedly working to subvert U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a copy of the document obtained by Foreign Policy.

    The seven-page document, which eventually landed on the president's desk, precipitated a crisis that led to the departure of several high-level NSC officials tied to former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The author of the memo, Rich Higgins, who was in the strategic planning office at the NSC, was among those recently pushed out.

    The full memo, dated May 2017, is titled "POTUS & Political Warfare." It provides a sweeping, if at times conspiratorial, view of what it describes as a multi-pronged attack on the Trump White House.

    Trump is being attacked, the memo says, because he represents "an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative." Those threatened by Trump include "'deep state' actors, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans."

    The memo is part of a broader political struggle inside the White House between current National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and alt-right operatives with a nationalist worldview who believe the Army general and his crew are subverting the president's agenda.

    Though not called out by name, McMaster was among those described in the document as working against Trump, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the memo and the events. Higgins, the author, is widely regarded as a Flynn loyalist who dislikes McMaster and his team.

    Political Warfare NSC memo by Brett LoGiurato on Scribd

    BACKGROUND. The Trump administration is suffering under withering information campaigns designed to first undermine, then delegitimize and ultimately remove the President. Possibly confusing these attacks with an elevated interplay of otherwise normal D.C. partisan infighting and adversarial media relations, the White House response to these campaigns reflects a political advocacy mindset that it is intensely reactive, severely under-inclusive and dangerously inadequate to the threat. If action is not taken to re-scope and respond to these hostile campaigns very soon, the administration risks implosion and subsequent early departure from the White House.

    This is not politics as usual but rather political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle. It must be recognized on its own terms so that immediate action can be taken. At its core, these campaigns run on multiple lines of effort, serve as the non-violent line of effort of a wider movement, and execute political warfare agendas that reflect cultural Marxist outcomes. The campaigns operate through narratives. Because the hard left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local (ANTIFA working with Muslim Brotherhood doing business as MSA and CAIR), national (ACLU and BLM working with CAIR and MPAC) and international levels (OIC working with OSCE and the UN), recognition must given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate at the narrative level as well. In candidate Trump, the opposition saw a threat to the "politically correct" enforcement narratives they've meticulously laid in over the past few decades. In President Trump, they see a latent threat to continue that effort to ruinous effect and their retaliatory response reflects this fear.

    INTRODUCTION. Responding to relentless personal assaults on his character, candidate Trump identified the players and the strategy:

    • 'The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed." - President Trump, Oct 2016

    Culturally conditioned to limit responses to such attacks as yet another round in the on-going drone from diversity and multicultural malcontents, these broadsides are discounted as political correctness run amuck. However, political correctness is a weapon against reason and critical thinking. This weapon functions as the enforcement mechanism of diversity narratives that seek to implement cultural Marxism. Candidate Trump's rhetoric in the campaign not only cut through the Marxist narrative, he did so in ways that were viscerally comprehensible to a voting bloc that then made candidate Trump the president; making that bloc self-aware in the process. President Trump is either the candidate he ran as, or he is nothing.

    Recognizing in candidate Trump an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative, those that benefit recognize the threat he poses and seek his destruction. For this cabal. Trump must be destroyed. Far from politics as usual, this is a political warfare effort that seeks the destruction of a sitting president. Since Trump took office, the situation has intensified to crisis level proportions. For those engaged in the effort, especially those from within the "deep state" or permanent government apparatus, this raises clear Title 18 (legal) concerns.

    DISCUSSION.

    The Opposition. While opposition to President Trump manifests itself through political warfare memes centered on cultural Marxist narratives, this hardly means that opposition is limited to Marxists as conventionally understood. Having become the dominant cultural meme, some benefit from it while others are captured by it; including "deep state" actors, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans. Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at risk and is slipping away. Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed. Atomization of society must also occur at the individual level; with attacks directed against all levels of group and personal identity. Hence the sexism, racism and xenophobia memes. As a Judeo-Christian culture, forced inclusion of post-modern notions of tolerance is designed to induce nihilistic contradictions that reduce all thought, all faith, all loyalties to meaninglessness. Group rights based on sex or ethnicity are a direct assault on the very idea of individual human rights and natural law around which the Constitution was framed. "Transgender acceptance" memes attack at the most basic level by denying a person the right to declare the biological fact of one's sex. When a population has 2 + 2 = 5 imposed on it, there are many that benefit:

    • Mainstream Media - The principle mechanism for implementing narratives.
    • The Academy - Academia has served as a principle counter-state node for some time and remains a key conduit for creating future adherents to cultural Marxist narratives and their derivative worldview.
    • The Deep State - The successful outcome of cultural Marxism is a bureaucratic state beholden to no one, certainly not the American people. With no rule of law considerations outside those that further deep state power, the deep state truly becomes, as Hegel advocated, god bestriding the earth.
    • Global Corporatists & Bankers - Exploitation of populations, unfettered by national protections and notions of personal morality and piety.
    • Democratic Leadership - The democratic leadership has been a counter-state enabler that executes, sustains, and protects cultural Marxist programs of action and facilitates the relentless expansion of the deep state.
    • Republican Leadership - More afraid of being accused of being called a racist, sexist, homophobe or Islamophobe than of failing to enforce their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution," the Republican Establishment accepts and enforces cultural Marxist memes within its own sphere of operations. In doing so, knowingly or not, it becomes an agent of that. These "conservatives" become increasingly indistinguishable from their democratic counter- parts save that they misrepresent themselves to their constituents. Lacking the discernment to recognize their situation, they will work with globalists, corporatists, and the international financial interests and will likewise service the deep state. These establishment Republicans are the hard left's designated defeat mechanism in the destruction of the old regime as well as the American ideal. 1 ( For more information on how influence operations of the former Soviet Union targeted leading conservative groups and individuals in order to bring them into line with cultural Marxist narratives. See Link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZhqeLRIMo ) Because candidate Trump publicly exposed them for their duplicitous activities, they are at risk as long as Trump can turn on them and are, therefore, bitter foes. Candidate Trump's success remains an ongoing existential threat to establishment Republicans.
    • Islamists - Islamists ally with cultural Marxist because, as far back as the 1980s, they properly assessed that the hard left has a strong chance of reducing Western civilization to its benefit. Having co-opted post-modern narratives as critical points, Islamists deploy these narrative to strategically blind and then control US decision makers. This is by design and purposeful. "By their own hands!" has been the declared strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood since 1991. This strategy seeks to divide American society against itself with the forced imposition of Islamist objectives on one half of American society by the other half. Once a society has been effectively atomized, the population will have lost its faith in the old order, detest those who reduced it, and divide along the lines of narrative adherence. This is the intended outcome of hostile information cum political warfare campaigns and today we see their effects on American society.

    Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him in the process. When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed. While the base that elected candidate Trump identified with his vision, they are only Trump's insofar as he holds to

    the vision that made him president.

    Political Warfare Attacks - A Primer. As used here, "political warfare" does not concern activities associated with the American political process but rather exclusively refers to political warfare as understood by the Maoist Insurgency model. 2 Political warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency. Maoist methodologies employ synchronized violent and non-violent actions that focus on mobilization of individuals and groups to action. This approach envisions the direct use of non-violent operational arts and tactics as elements of combat power. In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a hostile competing state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the "counter-state" and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.

    Political warfare is warfare. Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes. They principally operate through narratives. Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives.

    Complicating the current situation, many close to the president have pushed him off his message when he was candidate Trump thus alienating him from his base thereby isolating him in the process. When President Trump is not candidate Trump, he becomes dangerously exposed. While the base that elected candidate Trump identified with his vision, they are only Trump's insofar as he holds to

    the vision that made him president.

    Political Warfare Attacks - A Primer. As used here, "political warfare" does not concern activities associated with the American political process but rather exclusively refers to political warfare as understood by the Maoist Insurgency model. 2 Political warfare is one of the five components of a Maoist insurgency. Maoist methodologies employ synchronized violent and non-violent actions that focus on mobilization of individuals and groups to action. This approach envisions the direct use of non-violent operational arts and tactics as elements of combat power. In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power. Functioning as a hostile competing state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the "counter-state" and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.

    Political warfare is warfare. Strategic information campaigns designed to delegitimize through disinformation arise out of non-violent lines of effort in political warfare regimes. They principally operate through narratives. Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives.

    2 This discussion relies on Thomas A. Marks' treatment of the Maoist model as discussed in Maoist People's War in Post-Vietnam Asia (Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press, 2007), 1 - 14. Hereafter "Thomas A. Marks, Maoist People's War."

    As used in this discussion, cultural Marxism relates to programs and activities that arise out of Gramsci Marxism, Fabian Socialism and most directly from the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt strategy deconstructs societies through attacks on culture by imposing a dialectic that forces unresolvable contradictions under the rubric of critical theory. The result is induced nihilism, a belief in everything that is actually the belief in nothing.

    That post-modern (diversity/multiculturalism) narratives seeks to implement cultural Marxist objectives can be demonstrated by reference to founding Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse's repurposing of the term tolerance. In a 1965 paper, Marcuse defined tolerance as intolerance; said it can be implemented through undemocratic means to stop chauvinism (xenophobia), racism, discrimination; and should be extended to the left while denied to the right:

    • "The realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed."

    • "Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of pubic services, social security, medical care, etc." (8-9)

    • "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance:... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. - (12)

    It is through such post-modern constructs that interoperable narratives are established among various left-wing groups as well as between them and Islamist groups at all levels. For example, from the 2001 Conference of Foreign Ministers at Bamako, Mali, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) declared its commitment to fight racism and xenophobia and then declared Islamophobia a "contemporary form of racism":

    • In this context, the world Conference urges all states... take all necessary measures to comoat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence. Intimidation and coercion motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance particularly against Islam

    • Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance which display an increasing trend, in their most subtle and contemporary forms, constitute a violation of human rights. 3 Contemporary forms of racism are based on discrimination and disparagement on a cultural, rather than biological basis. In this content, the increasing trend of Islamophobia, as a distinct form of xenophobia in non-Muslim societies is very alarming.

    That the OIC made these claims as part of its planned inputs to the United Nation's "Third World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination. Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" further demonstrates the coordinated and interoperable nature of these narratives at international levels in international forums.

    As cultural Marxist narratives intensify, they are to be further operationalized in the form of hate speech narratives. Hate speech narratives are non-random, coordinated, and fully interoperable escalations of cultural Marxist memes. Key international players include the European Union, the UN, and the OSCE, the OIC and the International Muslim Brotherhood. Hate speech memes are structured, coordinated, and implemented through these same international forums. They involve close coordination with media and social media and include the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narratives. David Shipler's book Freedom of Speech provides a road map for how hate speech narratives are to be structured, deployed and enforced.

    Battlespace. These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media, and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies and within the foreign policy establishment. They inform the entertainment industry from late night monologues, to situation comedies, to television series memes, to movie themes. The effort required to direct this capacity at President Trump is little more than a programming decision to do so. The cultural Marxist narrative is fully deployed, pervasive, full spectrum and ongoing. Regarding the president, attacks have become a relentless 24/7 effort.

    While there is certainly a Marxist agenda and even Islamist motivations that must be seriously addressed in their own right, these motivations alone seem inadequate to explain the scope and magnitude of the effort directed against the president. The economic drivers behind the Marxist and Islamist ideologues are enormously influential and seek to leverage these ideological movements for their own self interests. While beyond the actual scope of this document, the benefactors of these political movements include; Urban Real Estate who depend greatly on immigrant tenants, International Banking who seeks to maintain US debtor status so as to control the application of American power, and elements of the business sector that depend upon immigrant labor or government infrastructure. The overall objective of these economic forces is the forced urbanization of the populace, thereby necessitating a larger, more powerful government. In summary, this is a form of population control by certain business cartels in league with cultural Marxists/corporatists/lslamists who will leverage Islamic terrorism threats to justify the creation of a police state.

    Adversary Campaign Plan. Political Warfare has been described as "propaganda in battledress." 3 The effort directed at President Trump is executed along one overt, as well as two covert, lines of effort:

    The overt line of effort is PUBLICITY. Publicity is the straightforward projection of a case that builds a picture in the audience's mind designed to garner support. It is facts without context and information the adversary wants the audience to possess that creates an impression and sets conditions. It seeks to establish good will and receptiveness to additional inputs.

    There are two covert lines of effort: PROPOGANDA and INFILTRATION/SUBVERSION.

    о Propaganda is the deliberate direction, even manipulation, of information to secure a

    definite outcome. It is an attempt to direct the thinking of the recipient, without his conscious collaboration, into predetermined channels that are established in the Publicity line of effort. It is the unwitting conditioning of the recipient by devious methods with an ulterior motive that seeks to move them incrementally over time into greater belief and acceptance of message transmitted in the Publicity line of effort.

    о Infiltration and subversion operate internal to the targeted organization in order to

    inform, target, coordinate, and amplify the effects of the publicity and propaganda.

    Both operate to gather intelligence, obstruct legitimate courses of action, provide inside information, and leak sensitive information that undermines the leadership and suppresses the morale of friendly elements.

    3 "Political Warfare Executive - The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare," His 8ritannic Majesty's Government, London, 1942, 5.

    о Infiltration of political and social groups within a target state is done for the purpose of extending counter- state influence and control. The endgame is concealed and may involve illicit activities.

    о Subversion undermines or detaches the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the target state and transfers political and/or ideological loyalties to the counter-state. As the counter-state forms, a counter-elite of influential individual and key leaders within the target state will later facilitate the legitimacy and permanency of the new regime.

    Political warfare employs both publicity and propaganda. It recognizes no intrinsic virtue in the news but rather envisions it as a mechanism to exploit and build up support. From a political warfare perspective, control of the news cycle is the most potent means of attracting and building up a favorable audience.

    As it relates to the news cycle, publicity and propaganda can be merged to form a "pseudo-publicity" that is presented as news in furtherance of sustaining pseudo-realities maintained by cultural Marxist memes. Pseudo-publicity treatment of President Trump dominates the news cycle. The current campaign against President Trump operates in the following manner:

    The Meta Narrative. Meta narratives seeks to delegitimize President Trump, his administration, and the vision of America he projected as a candidate. With cultural Marxist memes serving as the backdrop, President Trump is to be relentlessly characterized as unfit through the use of supporting narratives acting to move unwitting populations to belief in the meta narrative. Hence:

    • "President Trump is illegitimate"

    • "President Trump is corrupt"

    • "President Trump is dishonest"

    Note that the twitter accounts and mainstream media personalities pushing this narrative have seen their audience numbers rise greatly in the past 6 months. This is a direct result of the supporting and backdrop narratives channeling individuals to this meta-narrative.

    Supporting Narratives. Meta-narratives are supported by an ongoing series supporting-narratives that can be swapped out as circumstances warrant. It is important to recognize that these stories do not have to be true, valid or accurate to serve their purpose. Overtime, deserved or not, the cumulative effect of these supporting narratives will result in a Trump fatigue. From a political warfare perspective. President Trump's inability to meet this challenge will cast him as a weak failed leader. The current list of supporting narratives include:

    • "Russia hacked the election" - illegitimate
    • "Obstruction of Justice" -corrupt
    • "Hiding Collusion" -dishonest
    • "Putin Puppet" - treasonous

    Backdrop Narratives. The backdrop to the meta and supporting narratives are cultural Marxist memes designed to sustain a general sense of loathing of President Trump and the America that elected him. Hence:

    • "[meta] President Trump is illegitimate, [supporting] he was elected because of Russian hacking, [backdrop] and besides, he a racist, sexist xenophobe."

    Adversaries utilize these interlocking narratives as a defensive political and information warfare screen that silences critics and smears supporters of President Trump. When people in the media question the behavior, actions and decisions of the Trump Administration's opponents, they are immediately said to be "working for the Russians" or "supporting Russian propaganda." Individual Americans who support the President are deemed "deplorable" and "racist."

    End State. Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become self-aware of Its own disenfranchisement.

    CONCLUSION.

    The recent turn of events give rise to the observation that the defense of President Trump is the defense of America. In the same way President Lincoln was surrounded by political opposition both inside and outside of his wire, in both overt and covert forms, so too is President Trump. Had Lincoln failed, so too would have the Republic. The administration has been maneuvered into a constant back- pedal by relentless political warfare attacks structured to force him to assume a reactive posture that assures inadequate responses. The president can either drive or be driven by events; it's time for him to drive them.

    [Aug 02, 2017] Show Me The Man And Ill Find You The Crime by Bob Barr

    The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct characteristics of "show trials".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
    "... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
    "... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
    "... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
    Jun 28, 2017 | townhall.com

    The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting to share together in that idyllic " Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now, waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan" for sins and improprieties.

    This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale of a government lawyer in search of a crime.

    Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.

    Rather than setting specific parameters for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice and witness intimidation.

    As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search of a guilty man.

    Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly) recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.

    What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

    So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices.

    The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome. As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance" and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date. "That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent," writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."

    At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.

    [Jul 31, 2017] How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trumps Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
    "... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
    "... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
    "... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
    "... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
    "... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
    "... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
    "... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
    "... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
    "... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
    "... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
    Jul 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's America First worldview."

    Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.

    Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however, he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln .his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."

    But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains) to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.

    But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared to move.

    Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any other people.

    Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic threat to America.

    Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.

    But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of war and peace.

    Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign, and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine. A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long, pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of his positions and you see you disagree on every one."

    One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.

    Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.

    According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists, from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker, executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations, Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.

    Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative, has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.

    Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.

    Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy. Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's national security strategy.

    How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration? And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.

    Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state, tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb. He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor an open ended, unresolved war.

    Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .

    As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:

    "I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves. But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."

    "What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and its what we do."

    "The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine."

    One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since 1776?

    Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism? Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with the President?

    On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president."

    American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige, power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in. Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.

    This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage.

    Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, Copperhead.

    Andrew , says: July 30, 2017 at 11:04 pm

    This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself. And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
    Fran Macadam , says: July 31, 2017 at 12:36 am
    Globalism is the twenty-first century euphemism for old fashioned imperialism, now on Wall Street propelled nuclear steroids.
    KaneV , says: July 31, 2017 at 1:15 am
    Good God how shallow is the Trump foreign policy bench that the American Con has a director writing in its defense?
    reelectclaydavis , says: July 31, 2017 at 4:43 am
    Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a) you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible with the American interventions you oppose.
    polistra , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:13 am
    You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker. Doesn't matter which.

    The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it to do.

    Dan Stewart , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:23 am
    Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
    For Virginia , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:23 am
    It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year. And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's political career.

    The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.

    Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.

    Johann , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:27 am
    Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
    SDS , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:46 am
    "Trump is a smart guy" ..
    ??
    If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that he doesn't
    Kurt Gayle , says: July 31, 2017 at 9:03 am
    Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:

    "In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment.

    You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.

    And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?

    Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers.

    I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change.

    Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/watch-foreign-policy-in-americas-interest/

    We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.

    Kevin , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:13 am
    Shorter Ron Maxwell: good tsar, evil advisors --
    Bill Smith , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:24 am
    This article is sharply contradicted by an earlier and more informed article in Conservative Review, an outlet with a considerably larger audience than American Conservative. You might want to read that as a corrective to this one. You can find it here: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/trump-nat-sec-strategy-to-translate-maga-into-foreign-policy

    Money quote:

    A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast boilerplate is over."

    Henri James , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:44 am
    I do love that in all of these scenarios, Trump is just some innocent moon-eyed man child who can't possibly be expected to think on his own.
    Charlie , says: July 31, 2017 at 11:27 am
    The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew] next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every nuance of what is said and unsaid?

    When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.

    Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.

    David Skerry , says: July 31, 2017 at 11:51 am
    They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help America."

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism. ..."
    "... The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun. ..."
    "... Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie. ..."
    "... Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. ..."
    "... For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery. ..."
    "... The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. ..."
    "... The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie. ..."
    "... Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution. ..."
    "... In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations ..."
    "... The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity. ..."
    "... Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same. ..."
    "... Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies. ..."
    "... Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy. ..."
    "... We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. ..."
    Jul 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org
    Originally from: People's World

    The question of the labor movement under fascism is the question of what to do when it is already too late. Racist vigilante attacks are intensifying, comrades are being indicted, workers are being deported, bosses are breaking labor law with even greater impunity, the press is under threat, civil liberties are disappearing, politicians are attempting to rule by diktat, police are even more out of control, war is on the horizon. Everywhere, the threadbare niceties of the state under liberalism have vanished.

    We are not ready for this. The general strike seems like the only reasonable response, but the existing left and labor organizations are hard-pressed to mobilize for one. The working class is self-organizing, but success remains far from certain. What is this hell we are entering? How did we get here, and what role can the working class play in helping us find a way out?

    Origins of Fascism

    Fascism did not start out as a pejorative term. The word originates from the Latin fasces, a term for a bundle of sticks bound together around an axe so that they could not be broken, a symbol of unity and power. In ancient Rome, the fasces were carried by lictors, the bodyguards of magistrates and other state officials. The sticks could be unbundled to mete out beatings as prescribed by magistrates. The axe was used for the death penalty.

    Fascism first appeared in social movement usage not on the right, but on the Italian left in the late-nineteenth century as a symbol or term for "league" or "group" for various socialist and syndicalist organizations. It was in fact a former socialist who indelibly stamped fascist as an adjective for the far right: Benito Mussolini. His politics were shaped by the conflicts of modernity: violent class struggle, a bourgeoisie attempting to build a nation and a national market, and war. For a young Mussolini, working-class power seemed to be the way forward. But after beginning his political career in the Italian Socialist Party, the failure of the socialist movement to prevent World War I, as well as the outpouring of patriotic feeling released by the war, catalyzed Mussolini's conversion from class politics to a new brand of nationalism.

    Mussolini promised to make Italy great again, to return to the golden age of the Roman Empire. In his view, this could only happen through a new cross-class national unity, a powerful state under the tutelage of a new elite of Übermenschen, and a march toward war. The first task of Mussolini's fascism was the violent repression of workers' and peasants' movements in the wave of strikes and occupations after World War I, followed by the destruction of independent labor organizations once state power was attained.

    The conditions of crisis that had led to Italian fascism soon gave rise to parallel movements in other countries. Perhaps because of the visibility of Nazism, in particular in US popular culture, the fascism of the 1930 serves as the primary reference point for analysis of the right-wing authoritarianism we face today. The fascists of Italy, Falangists of Spain, Nazis of Germany and their less well-known counterparts across the Western world believed their elite were destined to rule as autocrats because they had won out in the war of all against all -- or must do so. The new elite would lead the nation in an imperialist project of gaining more spazio vitale (living space, or as the Nazis would call it, Lebensraum), seeking to displace British or American hegemony over the capitalist world-system and gain their people's place under the sun.

    Fascism cast culture as nature. It enforced and strengthened hierarchies based on ethnic or gender identities, claiming that some are meant to be masters and others to be slaves. Fascist governments replaced liberal guarantees of civil liberties and independent civil society organizations with a reimagining of the nation as a patriarchal family based on a racist conception of self and other, and corporatist organizations subordinated to the state. Corporatism here does not refer to corporations in the sense of a private company -- it actually referred to the incorporation of bosses, workers and state bureaucrats in a single overarching organization that would supposedly reflect their common nationalist interests.

    Fascists paid lip service to "socialism" for the Volksgemeinschaft (the Nazi concept of a racially pure "people's community"), but they found their most willing partners in the project of rationalizing social, political and economic life in the bourgeoisie.

    Fascists in league with big capital subjected the working class to a redoubled divide-and-conquer strategy. Some sections of workers were included in the Volkgemeinschaft, bound up in corporatist schemes of labor-management compromise in exchange for loyalty necessary for war-making. But those who were not thought to belong to the "master race" were excluded from any form of representation or organization, and subjected to hyper-exploitation. Millions of Jews, Roma, eastern Europeans and others deemed Untermenschen were subjected to persecution, forced labor and genocide.

    For the working class, fascism is the bloody assertion of heteronormative, patriarchal capitalism without democracy. The mythologization of hierarchy and the nation, intensified oppression based on ethnic and gender identities, glorification of war, and violent repression of worker and social movement organizations were hallmarks of all the historical regimes we call fascism -- Hitler's National Socialists, Franco's Falangists and others. Today, most of these characteristics are also present in the new wave of right-wing regimes taking power in the West, as well as in India, Russia, Turkey and other authoritarian capitalist states of the periphery.

    Continuities With Liberalism

    As participants in this unfolding catastrophe, we tend to emphasize its discontinuities with the postwar liberal order that preceded the current unraveling. But the continuities are in fact more alarming, and more important to understand if we want to eradicate fascism root and branch, once and for all. Fascism is possible not in spite of liberal capitalism, but because of it. Both historically and philosophically, fascism is rooted in the same Western tradition as liberalism. Fascism continually reemerges because its seeds are incubated in the contradictions of capitalism.

    The capital-F Fascism of authoritarian government is possible because of the lower case-f fascism that thrives in everyday life under capitalism. The centralized state was an invention of the bourgeoisie, a business innovation necessary to manage its affairs. Its bureaucracy stands ready-made for takeover by fascist thugs. Eichmann-like obedience necessary for the Fascist political project is inculcated by the state and corporate bureaucracy built by the bourgeoisie. Fascists march to war down roads that were paved by centuries of European colonialism and imperialism. The fascist discourse of national greatness is nothing more than a continuation of the nationalism of the imagined community constructed by the bourgeoisie.

    The fascist enforcement of gender norms is a grotesque exaggeration of the patriarchal division of labor engendered by one form of capitalism. Fascism's celebration of hierarchy and legitimation of class society is an extreme form of the twin lies of liberalism: "meritocracy" (barely distinguishable as a concept from Social Darwinism) and racist essentialism. Racism itself was born of the Western project of colonialism, and given a stamp of legitimacy by Enlightenment science that sought to taxonomize all things, plants, animals and people.

    Liberalism promises to keep its Id in check with guarantees of the rights of man, but this was always a promise more often broken than kept. The majority of our planet's inhabitants have already been living under a permanent state of exception. The test runs for the Nazi Holocaust were the late-Victorian holocausts of mass murder in Africa, and the genocidal colonization of the Americas and uncounted colonial massacres.

    In the capitalist core, millions have long lived their lives as what Giorgio Agamben termed homo sacer -- a term from ancient Rome signifying those who are deprived of rights by the state, and subject to extra-judicial violence by the George Zimmermans of the world. Across the capitalist core, immigrants and refugees live without the promise of any kind of liberal human rights, facing possible deportation in any interaction with the authorities.

    Clintonite cosmopolitan liberalism claims that these oppressions are atavisms of the past, even though they are renewed every day. It promises to unite the world Benetton-like in a multicultural global market, where everyone is equally free to exploit and be exploited. Liberalism will occasionally apologize for its racism, sexism and colonial massacres, and may make affirmative action reforms to stabilize its rule and rationalize production, or in the case of the US government's eventual concessions to the civil rights movement, to compete ideologically with the Soviet Union. But there is one place where it can never acknowledge illegitimate hierarchy: the workplace. And it is precisely here that the contradictions that propel the world toward fascism are rooted.

    The Liberal Compromise

    Fascism is not only a grotesque exaggeration of the worst elements of bourgeois society. As a popular tendency, it is a response to the same contradictions that generate left radicalism: poverty, powerlessness and alienation. It is the manufactured scarcity of capitalism that opens the door to a fascist solution.

    As a form of government, fascism is not the bourgeoisie's first choice, of course. It is an unstable system prone to cronyism that places certain limits on the market. So, like the boss who wants you to try for a promotion rather than organizing a union, liberalism first tries to resolve its contradictions through expansion. This could mean economic growth through technological upgrading, or stimulation of new needs and desires to create new consumer markets, or it could mean capturing new markets through war and trade agreements. As long as the pie is getting bigger, tensions over who gets the biggest piece are diffused.

    The contradiction of liberal capitalism played out in real historical time. To stabilize its own rule in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II, liberal capitalism accepted a degree of regulation, establishing norms necessary for more-or-less long-term operation of a market, and setting up a system that could compete economically and ideologically with international socialism. This took the form of the New Deal and the Keynesian welfare state, a compromise that institutionalized class struggle to boost consumption.

    In the United States, some -- mostly white, mostly male -- workers were granted some rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Domestic workers and farm laborers were excluded, a concession to white supremacist political factions. This was a far more soft-serve version of the inclusion/exclusion from representation that also characterized the fascist system of labor control of the same era. It was also premised on loyalty to the capitalist state. The leaders of the major union federations were granted seats at the table, in exchange for expelling Communists from their ranks and adopting a depoliticized approach to labor relations.

    After World War II, the US exported this New Deal model of labor relations through its reconstruction efforts in Western Europe and East Asia. For around thirty years, workers were rewarded for their loyalty with wage increases that matched growth in productivity. For the most part, this resulted in an apolitical acquiescence to life under capitalism. By the end of the twentieth century, liberalism seemed to reign triumphant. Some claimed that liberal capitalism was the End of History, that the age of extremes had definitively passed. Both socialism and fascism were consigned to the dustbin. Under the leadership of the WTO and the largest of the Western corporations, humanity was to march onward into a glorious consumerist future with McDonald's, Starbucks and Apple products for all.

    How wrong they were.

    Post-Liberalism

    Everywhere, authoritarian regimes are winning out over centrist liberalism. The Chinese model of development -- an authoritarian state with just enough market relations to fill the pockets of a kleptocratic elite -- has become the dominant development paradigm for much of Asia and Africa. Western corporate elites have watched jealously as mega-projects and mega-profits that would take years of political wrangling in the capitalist core get the green light in China. Nevertheless, most sectors of capital still seem to prefer Clintonite liberalism to Trumpian fascism, or certainly to Bernie Sanders' social democracy. But increasingly, the centrist option is off the table, for reasons of the bourgeoisie's own doing.

    The triumph of liberalism in the 1990s belied its own decay. Since the 1970s, global capital has sought to dismantle the liberal welfare state and put more and more social goods (such as education, healthcare and what remains of public housing) on the market through "structural adjustment" and austerity.

    The decay of the liberal system is nowhere more evident than in labor relations. The stable system of collective bargaining put in place by the National Labor Relations Act was under attack from the far right since its inception -- but has been most effectively undermined by the liberal center since 1981. In that year, Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in the PATCO union, signaling open season on the labor movement. Workplace-level union-busting, the use of scabs to break strikes, automation and outsourcing all drove unionization rates in the United States down from around 30 percent in the 1950s, to barely 10 percent in 2017. Behind this evisceration is a shift in ruling-class strategy from grudging acceptance of unions in the system of labor control, to direct domination of each individual worker through "Human Resources Management."

    As a result, the standard of living in the capitalist core has undergone almost half a century of decline. This has paralleled the decline of the United States as the hegemonic power in the global political economy. As this decline continues, workers in the capitalist core of all income levels have begun looking for alternatives to neoliberal politics. The mythology of the American Dream no longer works its magic of erasing class antagonisms.

    Today, the body politic is afflicted with a dysphoria -- a disconnect between the lived experiences of the working class, and the political and cultural representations with which hegemonic liberalism seeks to interpellate them. The Clintonite slogan "America Is Already Great" does not resonate with workers who see themselves making less money than their parents' generation. The cultural disjuncture leads to a political rejection of corporate liberals. A new political subject is waiting to be called into existence. The depoliticization of life that accompanied the postwar liberal settlement is over. The center cannot hold. Everyone is picking a side.

    Neoliberalism promises more of the same, fascism promises "economic nationalism" and a return to a mythologized past, a democratic socialist revival bids for a return to some form of social democracy. But once again, the discontinuities of these ideologies with liberalism are not as strong as their continuities. Both the fascist ideology of Trump and Brexit, and the social-democratic revivalism of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are post-liberal, in that they are symptomatic of the breakdown of the liberal order. But they are also post-liberal, in that they fail to break with the fundamentals of liberal capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, wage labor and markets as a means of distribution. It is these fundamentals of capitalism which brought us to the crisis of neoliberalism, and any movement that is unwilling to challenge these fundamentals will ultimately bring us more of the same.

    In some cases, the post-liberal left wins or makes important gains in elections -- Syriza and Podemos serving as the most prominent examples. But their victories tend to be short-lived. Without willingness to fundamentally break with neoliberal capitalism, it is not long before voters realize that they have elected a non-solution, and turn once again to the right. The failure of the left to offer an anti-systemic alternative is what brought the fascist right to power in the United States and threatens to do the same in other places across the world. Now we need to figure out what exactly to expect, and how to fight to win.

    The Other Workers' Movement

    True to form as fascists, the Trump regime has set to work recasting the boundaries between self and other in the United States. It is a project of scapegoating, and of legitimizing the repression of labor and social movements. Unlike its 1930s antecedents in Germany, Italy or Spain, Trump's cartoonish fascism has not had to ban the unions and set up new ones under direct control of the state. There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United States already has one.

    Since the 1980s, most workers' organizations have already been liquidated. Most workers are subjects of a capitalist dictatorship in the workplace, and millions have long been excluded from even the most basic guarantees of liberalism: to be paid for your labor, to not be summarily executed by police, to be accorded due process rights. There is a new intensity and scale to these attacks, but the line of attack itself is not actually new.

    The "official" workers' movement has largely failed to resist attacks old and new. Under Trump, the labor movement has gladly divided and conquered itself, with the heads of building trade unions meeting with Trump and sycophantically glowing over the "respect" he showed them, while he prepares orders to deport millions of immigrant workers and deprive millions more citizens of their rights. Many unions simply seem to be hoping for the best, while failing to prepare for the worst. Others refuse to publicly attack Trump in the hopes of cutting some sort of deal. But no matter how close some unions get to the boss, they cannot escape the fact that their organizations are in the crosshairs more than ever. Trump's fascism seeks to finish off the legal framework of labor relations under postwar liberalism, dealing the coup de grâce to an institutional labor movement that has long been hemorrhaging members.

    The resistance is therefore in the "other" workers' movement -- among those who never were included in the legal mechanisms of the compact of postwar liberalism in the first place, such as immigrant workers, the unwaged labor of women, and students. They are joined by a new "other" workers' movement: the rebel rank-and-file of the institutional unions, such as teachers and public sector workers, and increasingly, self-organized groups of workers who have never belonged to a union. As the state falls under the sway of fascist control, the weapons of this resistance are increasingly extralegal: from protests to strikes, highway blockades and physical confrontations.

    While increasingly bold in tactics, resistance to fascism is so far largely conservative, in the true sense of the word: it seeks to conserve the liberal order. Until now, its battles have been mostly defensive, and if they are won, will merely put liberals back in power. The real destruction of fascism can only be accomplished by a new workers' movement, unencumbered by the sacred cows of the bureaucracies that grew up under corporate liberalism. It is in the "other" workers' movement that a radicalism beyond liberal capitalism can be imagined, and it is with the forces that we build with our own hands that it can be won.

    How do we win this fight? The tasks are largely the same as before, but with a new sense of urgency, and in conditions of heavier repression. As before, we must engage millions in the fight for a different future. No true revolution is possible without mass participation. We must build a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees that make a general strike possible. We must also be prepared to go beyond a general strike, to build dual power through worker and community assemblies that will replace or transform the state with a true democracy. This is a struggle not just to restore the old world-system, but to build a new one. This is the time to be revolutionaries, to fight to win the world we actually want.

    Calamity of epic proportions awaits millions in the working class. Deportations, intensified exploitation at work, the destruction of our life-giving planet, vigilante attacks, refugee crisis, resurgent misogyny, transphobia and racism, and the threat of inter-state war. It is already too late to prevent much of this. But it has always already been too late. Untold tragedy is the legacy of liberalism, and of every return of fascism. That is why we fight for the future. That is why we fight to win. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. Erik Forman Erik Forman has been active in the Industrial Workers of the World since 2005, working and organizing at Starbucks and Jimmy John's. He is currently compiling a report on union strategies for organizing the food service and retail sectors as a Practitioner Fellow at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University. Related Stories Fascist America: Have We Finally Turned The Corner? By Sara Robinson, AlterNet | Op-Ed Fascism 101: The Police and Media Control By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed Hitler at Home: How the Nazi PR Machine Duped the World By Despina Stratigakos, The Conversation | Op-Ed Recommend Recommended Discussion Recommended!

    Recommending means this is a discussion worth sharing. It gets shared to your followers' Disqus feeds, and gives the creator kudos! Find More Discussions Share Share this discussion on Twitter Facebook Sort by Newest Best Newest Oldest +

    Liberty5 , April 27, 2017 12:55 AM

    Mussolini was for a time an avowed Marxist, socialist and atheist. He was never an original liberal. He did support modern Keynesian liberalism, saying that "Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes." But Mussolini hated the liberalism that spelled individualism. In his 1935 version of the "Doctrine of Fascism," he proclaimed: "Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms
    the State as the true reality of the individual." Fascism, actually came out of Marxism. Zeev Sternhell says that Fascist ideology... was a revision of Marxism." Fascism also came out of revolutionary syndicalism (unions).

    Enrique Woll Battistini , April 20, 2017 2:10 PM

    Ultimately, this global state of affairs could only be defended and preserved by the most rancid sort of unfettered fascism:

    https://www.academia.edu/13...

    Pat Luppens , April 17, 2017 6:51 PM

    Your analysis is spot on, BUT "we must engage millions in the fight for a different future" Are you serious? We can't even get half the people off their butts to vote. If we could, this discussion would be moot.

    NoDifference , April 16, 2017 8:17 PM

    With the advent of nearly complete automation of every production process, and increasing automation of services (think Uber, with the coming Google cars), the employed pool of workers is steadily decreasing as a proportion of the able workforce. We can choose to believe the lies that there will be at least 1 for 1 replacement of these jobs with new, higher-paying technological jobs if we want to I guess. But I don't buy it.

    Why would companies like to invest in machinery if it does not help to eliminate manual, human labor? After all, human work is error prone and slow, and in many cases, certain advanced manufacturing processes can not even be performed manually. Corporations invest in automation, recession or otherwise, so the old trope coming from the Right that workers demand too much pay, etc., appears to be convenient but nonsense "reasoning."

    So, with labor steadily disappearing from the workplaces of the world, exactly who does Mr. Forman (and others) expect to sign up with their unions? The remaining workers, who earn more than their former counterparts consigned to laborious and dangerous work for poor pay, are probably far more tantalized by technological challenges that make their work pleasant and enjoyable.

    It is difficult -- no, actually impossible -- for me to imagine legions of computer programmers and other high-tech workers organizing and hankering for a labor union that would have only marginal advantage for them. And they know better than most that they, too, can be displaced from their jobs by the next iteration of technological advances or better wage prospects for their corporate overlords. So we can probably put this thesis to bed also, no?

    There are still millions of workers at fast food restaurants who certainly need solid and reliable labor representation, and the IWW is probably the single best union to do this (I'm a bit of a wob myself, ok?). That said, we are still only looking at a sliver of the population, albeit an increasingly larger portion of the remaining employed workforce.

    It occurs to me that what we really need is to organize the consumers to effect the sorts of changes we want. Its first demand should probably be a guaranteed Basic Income (BI), which would put those last workers still languishing in fast food and other poor-paying retail jobs in demand , rather than jobs being in demand. And we could stop wasting resources and destroying the environment so that one more poor person can afford to eat today. (Think commuters driving 30 miles to a minimum wage job and you will understand what I am driving at.)

    This would be a complete paradigm shift, one like no other in human history. For the first time, workers and consumers would be united in accomplishing their common purposes, namely a peaceful world that respects human nature and the environment.

    Please consider BI as a basis for a more fair and equitable society. See basicincome.org and bein.org for more information.

    Michael Tee , April 16, 2017 8:10 AM

    Great article. One of the best ever published at Truthout. Must be studied by political activists everywhere.

    gmatch , April 16, 2017 3:30 AM

    America's regime can be described as a plutocratic military junta controlled by Zionists.

    SkepticalPartisan , April 15, 2017 3:44 PM

    Thanks for the historical perspective. But there is another metric which is rarely, if ever, used to define the spectrum of socioeconomic systems, one of power concentration.

    democracy = power is determined by voters
    capitalism = power concentrates in owners; owners game the system to determine who has the opportunity to own
    slave capitalism = power of owner extends to owning workers/laborers
    feudal capitalism = power concentrates in owners to extent they control many work/labor conditions including wages and residency
    communism = power concentrates in members of single state party committee
    oligarchic capitalism = power concentrates in small number of owners
    monopoly = power concentrates in one corporation and their owners
    fascism = power concentrates in one political party

    The point is that the concentration of economic power has parallels in the concentration of political power. The terms/names used to describe each system often overlap in meaning and thus, can be confusing. It would be better to use a sliding scale to represent power concentration; something along the lines of the Kinsey sexuality scale. On a scale of 0-10 (low to high) how is political power distributed? How is economic power distributed? Based on Gillens and Page, political power score is roughly 7.6 in favor of the economic elites <http: www.vox.com ="" 2014="" 4="" 18="" 5624310="" martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained="">. Based on stock ownership, the economic power scale is about 6.6 - top 5% owns about 2/3 of stocks <https: www.salon.com ="" 2013="" 09="" 19="" stock_ownership_who_benefits_partner=""/>. The latter is not the best metric of economic power; actual score is likely significantly higher. This type of granular information is more useful in accurately describing power relationships than misleading names/titles/terms.

    NoDifference SkepticalPartisan , April 16, 2017 8:24 PM

    Thank you for clearly defining YOUR definition of communism. As I replied to another poster here, the term "communism" is often conflated with its original meaning, and only helps the arguments of the RW.

    SkepticalPartisan NoDifference , April 18, 2017 11:40 AM

    That's my point, the semantics of political/economic systems are easily distorted. A metric of power concentration in this instance would be useful.

    Orestes60 , April 15, 2017 3:11 PM

    From the article: "There is no need for a new fascist system of labor control, because under neoliberalism the United States already has one." This is another reason why liberalism whether bourgeois liberal idealism or liberal pragmatism or neoliberalism is not sufficiently anti-fascist. Additionally, liberalism in all its forms will never be anti-capitalist and pro-community socialist.

    I wonder what percentage of the earth's inhabitants, who have the power to promote socialism in lieu of various "Third Ways" or imperial anarcho-capitalism, have recognized the truth of the article's graphic "Capitalism Has Outlived Its Usefulness"?

    Bill_Perdue , April 15, 2017 2:59 PM

    "You're not paranoid if you think the world feels more unstable -- it is. There's a dangerous confluence of political, economic, and military phenomena that is producing a very hazardous international situation. At the center of each maelstrom is the U.S. Government, and instead of acting as a promoter of peace and stability the Obama administration has been a catalyst of confrontation and war. An especially combustible zone is the Ukraine, where the U.S. is engaged in what is becoming a full-fledged proxy war with Russia. " The Obama administration's decisive role in the Ukrainian conflict has received only a sliver of space from the U.S. media, even after an audio of Obama's Under Secretary of State was leaked, exposing the U.S.' direct leadership role in a coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected government." http://www.counterpunch.org...

    Obama followed in the footsteps of every American regime since the end of WWII. Reagan visited an SS graveyard and memorial and the Truman and Eisenhower regimes made extensive use of not-so-ex Nazis in their spy rings. Trump will continue Obamas policies.

    Fascist movements are growing in the NATO region of Western and Central Europe. Large ultraright and neo-Nazi Islamophobic parties are a real threat in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece. Nowhere are they effectively challenged by fake leftists in social democrat parties like the Sozialistische Partei Österreichs, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the Partido Socialista Obrero Espańol, the Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) or the Parti Socialiste because they're pro-capitalist parties. Neither they or the old line capitalist parties like the Democrats or Republicans in the US have anything real to offer in the fight against fascism.

    There is no imminent danger of fascism coming to power in the US or the EU because although it's advanced, the death agony of capitalism is not such that it would lead the bankster class to create an extremely violent and well armed mass fascist street army to defeat unions and other mass movements of workers. The preconditions for fascism are the collapse and failure of capitalist 'democratic' government, the collapse or total defeat of unions and the left and growth of a mass fascist movement based on the middle, not the working class.

    Libby , April 15, 2017 1:33 PM

    Excellent article. Although I have more questions than answers, Foreman goes a long way in supplying some of the history and analysis necessary for a new dialogue and the urgency of the same. As part of the same endeavor, educational articles about post-growth and de-growth economics would also be welcome, not only for what they may offer in the way of sustainability, but also in the sense of replacing consumerism, materialism and 'meritocracy' with other -higher - values.

    Jethro_T , April 15, 2017 11:51 AM

    The penultimate paragraph begins by asking, "How do we win this fight?" It then offers some advice of a general nature, which only hints at what's necessary. Let's first assume that the will for a prolonged general strike exists; how then to subsist without wages until victory is won?

    The author suggests "...a vast network of workplace and community-based organizing committees..." and lets it go at that; I would add that those committees must take responsibility for ensuring that all are fed and sheltered, and that those in the community who can't care for themselves are looked after. So: communal gardens providing the food for communal meals, communal daycare for elders and communal schooling and recreation for kids, communal housing, and communal healthcare and transportation as needed---in short, an explicitly and comprehensively anticapitalist modus vivendi.

    We can do this---in fact, we must do this, as the only alternative is extinction.

    dmorista , April 15, 2017 11:05 AM

    Excellent article. Of course the situation here in the U.S. is complicated by the fact that this society, that benefited in general though very unevenly from its status as Global Hegemon for a number of years, is now suffering again very unevenly from the ongoing demise of that position in the Global Capitalist Hierarchy.

    We do have a ruling class that is exceptionally violent and brutal, the majority of whose outrages were committed overseas over the last 70 years. However, the police state and terror operations, first used against the Huk rebellion in the post WW 2 Philippines and later honed and further developed in Vietnam, Indonesia, Angola, Congo, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, among other places, will increasingly be inward directed as the crisis of American Empire and the decay of Capitalism continues.

    [Jul 30, 2017] Mainstream News Manipulation of US Public

    McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win. One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
    NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
    Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and what was stolen
    But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
    Notable quotes:
    "... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
    Jul 30, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    Anna C 1 month ago

    LEGAL, WIKIMEDIA V. NSA Discussing fake news and the NSA lawsuit at Yale | https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/

    Tracy Spose 1 month ago

    Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.

    The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.

    [Jul 30, 2017] Lack of Hope in America The High Costs of Being Poor in a Rich Land by Carol Graham, Leo Pasvolsky

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Carol Graham, Leo Pasvolsky Senior at the Brookings Institution and College Park Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
    "... Despite the long-held belief that high levels of inequality in the US signal future opportunity, a number of studies suggest that this is no longer the reality. This column examines trends in inequality from the perspective of well-being and focuses on non-economic aspects of welfare, including hope. The results reveal stark differences across people, races, and places in the US. Poor minorities – and blacks in particular – are much more hopeful than poor whites, while urban places are more hopeful than are rural ones, as are places with higher levels of diversity. ..."
    "... See original post for references ..."
    "... Education, incentives, tools, new jobs. ..."
    "... I'm close to disgusted by this analysis. It shows either a complete lack of insight into root causes, or a stubborn unwillingness to speak about them. No mention of globalisation, capitalism, financial crises, housing foreclosures, predatory corporations, or corruption of law and justice. Blather about different language used in the two Americas may score points at a sociolinguistics conference, but is otherwise unilluminating. All the framing in terms of people's "willingness to invest in the future" is bogus – it should be about "ability to create futures for themselves". Only the rich have the luxury of investing, for everyone else it's the struggle to stay afloat and perhaps improve their circumstances. ..."
    "... Welcome to fear .It's hope, turned inside out ..."
    Jul 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    By Carol Graham, Leo Pasvolsky Senior at the Brookings Institution and College Park Professor in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. Originally published at VoxEU

    Despite the long-held belief that high levels of inequality in the US signal future opportunity, a number of studies suggest that this is no longer the reality. This column examines trends in inequality from the perspective of well-being and focuses on non-economic aspects of welfare, including hope. The results reveal stark differences across people, races, and places in the US. Poor minorities – and blacks in particular – are much more hopeful than poor whites, while urban places are more hopeful than are rural ones, as are places with higher levels of diversity.

    The US is as divided as it has ever been. The simplest marker – which has been a topic of discussion among economists for many years – is the stark increase in inequality of both income and opportunity. A number of studies provide compelling evidence that despite the long-held belief that high levels of inequality in the US signal future opportunity, that is no longer the reality. Chetty et. al. (2017) find that the percentage of children who are able to rise above the income levels of their parents has fallen from 90% for cohorts born in 1940 to 50% for those born in 1980. Yet technical discussions among economists based on metrics such as Gini coefficients do not seem to resonate in public debates.

    Divisions in the US go well beyond the income arena, and in ways that are particularly worrisome. In a new book, I document trends in inequality from the perspective of well-being, starting with standard metrics but also exploring how these relate to non-economic aspects of welfare, such as happiness, stress, anger, and, most importantly, hope (Graham 2017).

    Hope is an important channel driving people's willingness to invest in the future. My early research on well-being work highlights its particular importance for people with less means, for whom making such investments requires a greater sacrifice of current consumption than it does for the rich (Graham et al. 2004). In addition to widening gaps in opportunity, the prosperity gap in the US has led to rising inequality in beliefs, hopes, and aspirations, with those who are left behind economically the least hopeful and the least likely to invest in their futures.

    A Tale of Two Americas

    There are, indeed, two Americas. Those at the top of the income distribution (including the top of the middle class) increasingly lead separate lives, with barriers to reaching the upper class being very real, if not explicit (Reeves 2017). Those at the top have high levels of hope for the future and make investments in themselves and in their children's health, education, and knowledge more generally. Those at the bottom have much lower levels of hope and they tend to live day by day, consumed with daily struggles, high levels of stress, and poor health.

    There are many markers of the differences across these two Americas, ranging from education levels and job quality to marriage and incarceration rates to life expectancy. Indeed, the starkest evidence of this lack of faith in the future is the marked increase in premature deaths – driven largely but not only by an increase in preventable deaths (such as via suicide and drug over-dose) among middle-aged uneducated whites, as described by Case and Deaton (2017).

    There are even differences in the words that these two Americas use. Common words in wealthy America reflect investments in health, knowledge acquisition, and the future: iPads and Baby Bjorns, foam rollers and baby joggers, cameras, and exotic travel destinations such as Machu Picchu. The words that are common in poor America – such as hell, stress, diabetes, guns, video games, and fad diets – reflect short-time horizons, struggles, and lack of hope (Leonhardt 2015).

    Based on detailed Gallup data, we find stark differences across people, races, and places in the US. Remarkably, poor minorities – and blacks in particular – are much more hopeful than poor whites. Poor blacks are three times as likely to be a point higher on the ten-point optimism scale than are poor whites, while Hispanics are about one and a half times more likely than poor whites. Poor blacks are also half as likely to experience stress – a significant marker of ill-being – on a daily basis as are poor whites, while poor Hispanics are about two-thirds as likely.

    Figure 1 Odds of being on a higher level of optimism, by race group (relative to white), within each income group

    Figure 2 Odds of experiencing stress, by race group (relative to white), within each income group

    These differences across race have multiple explanations. One important one is that, despite substantial obstacles, minorities have been gradually narrowing the gaps with whites, at least in terms of education and life expectancy gaps. Minorities are also more likely to compare themselves with parents who were worse off than they are, while blue-collar whites are more likely to compare themselves with parents who were better off – a trend that has been increasing over the past decade, as found by Cherlin (2016). By 2016, 26% of non-Hispanic whites reported being worse off than their parents, compared to only 16% and 14% of blacks and Hispanics, respectively. Cherlin also finds that those individuals who report being worse off than their parents are less happy with their lives and less likely to trust others.

    Psychological research points to higher levels of resilience among minorities compared to whites. Assari et al. (2016) find that blacks and Hispanics are much less likely to report depression and/or commit suicide in the face of negative shocks than are whites. Our research suggests that there may be an ageing effect. While younger blacks, particularly males, are more likely to be angry than their white counterparts (even though they are still more hopeful), older blacks are significantly less likely to be angry than whites.

    More generally, urban places are more hopeful than are rural ones, as are places with higher levels of diversity. In recent research, Sergio Pinto and I find that the same places have healthier behaviours – such as more people who exercise and less who smoke (Graham and Pinto 2017). In contrast, we also find that the places with more respondents who lack hope for the future tend to have higher levels of premature mortality driven by 'deaths of despair', i.e. those driven by suicide and/or drug and alcohol addiction.

    These differences are reflected across a range of inter-related trends, which again are more prevalent among uneducated whites. Reported pain, which is a gateway to both opioid addiction and suicide, is higher among whites than among blacks, and highest among rural whites. Reliance on disability insurance links to reported pain due to the injuries associated with many blue-collar jobs. Rates have increased in the past decades from just under 3% of the working age population to almost 5% for men. Premature mortality has increased dramatically for uneducated whites – particularly those in rural areas and small towns – compared to their black and Hispanic counterparts. A recent study finds that civic participation of all kinds is also much lower in rural areas, areas that also tend to have far less access to broadband internet (Kawashi-Ginsberg and Sullivan 2017). These rural–urban trends map remarkably closely, meanwhile, with political divisions, voting patterns, and even alternative sources of news in the US.

    The figures below depict rough geographic regularities – via state averages – in the distribution of stress, reported pain, reliance on disability insurance, and premature mortality for poor white respondents (the cohort that is demonstrating the starkest signs of despair). Our econometric analysis discussed above identifies the specific role that lack of hope plays in this vicious circle.

    What Can Be Done to Reduce Despair?

    Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet for solving widespread desperation and its negative manifestations. It is even more difficult to conceive of solutions in a political cycle that hinges on daily crises and scandals. Not surprisingly, the proposals coming out of the current administration are simply to make across-the-board cuts in social programmes – far from the creative thinking required to make these programmes part of the solution. In the short run, solutions will likely be piecemeal and bottom-up, emanating from communities themselves with support from local level political actors and organisations.

    There are, of course, major policy changes that could help over the longer run. Firstly, while deaths of despair are exactly as described, the all too readily available supply of opioids and other addictive drugs is an issue that policy can productively address. Another key policy area, which I highlight in the book, is the need to re-think safety net policies in the US. Food stamps, for example, tend to stigmatise recipients, and the programmes that provide cash assistance for the non-working poor have been shrinking, particularly in Republican states. Given that 15% of prime-age males are out of the labour force – and this is projected to grow to 25% by mid-century – another approach is clearly necessary.

    The technological displacement of low-skilled jobs is here to stay – and is an important issue for many countries, well beyond the US. Addressing this issue will require longer-term changes, such as education and incentives that provide the young in economic desserts the tools to move to where the new jobs are. Older displaced/out-of-the-labour-force workers pose more of a challenge. Well-being research offers some lessons, such as the benefits of volunteering, participating in community activities, and other ways of avoiding the isolation and despair that accompanies unemployment.

    Finally, restoring hope is not impossible, and as a start entails reaching out to those in distress with positive strategies for the future. Experimental research, such as that by Hall and Shafir (2014) and Haushofer and Fehr (2014), shows that simple interventions that introduce a source of hope to the poor and vulnerable can alter behaviour and lead to better future outcomes. The alternative is for desperation to yield even more support for politicians fostering division, exclusion, and an impossible return to the past. The associated turmoil, as recent elections and events in both the US and the UK demonstrate, is counter-productive for all, and particularly so for the most vulnerable.

    See original post for references

    allan , July 29, 2017 at 2:52 am

    The technological displacement of low-skilled jobs is here to stay – and is an important issue for many countries, well beyond the US. Addressing this issue will require longer-term changes, such as education and incentives that provide the young in economic desserts the tools to move to where the new jobs are.

    Education, incentives, tools, new jobs.
    That could be cut and pasted from a DNC press release. Coding camps for all!

    It seems that even the Even the Liberal Brookings still doesn't get how bad things are,
    or how much fundamental restructuring of the economy and society would be needed
    to reverse things.

    Livius Drusus , July 29, 2017 at 4:18 am

    The answers are never things like reforming labor law to make it easier to unionize, renegotiating trade agreements to make them fairer to workers, fixing the trade deficit, true universal health care and perhaps the most obvious answer: have the government hire people directly!

    No, it is always learn to code and move to New York or San Francisco. It is getting harder and harder to deny that Thomas Frank was right when he said that modern liberalism is now centered on upper middle-class professionals and their theory of technocratic meritocracy.
    These people can't imagine any solutions that don't comport with their own experiences.

    The credentialed professionals earned their wealth and status through schooling and moving to one of the large metro areas where professional jobs are plentiful. They assume that everyone must follow the same path that they did because they are convinced that they have merit and others do not. They can't imagine that in some cases staying in your dying town where you at least have family networks might be a more rational option than dropping everything for a chance to "make it" in an alien city with a high cost of living. Why do the "go where the jobs are" narratives always seem to ignore the fact that large cities are becoming so expensive that the lower-paid workers who service the "knowledge workers" at Google and Facebook can't even afford to live there anymore? I guess the reason is that it would reveal the social hourglass nature of the supposedly wonderful liberal big cities.

    Also, I want to call attention to the obsessive focus on men not working. Dean Baker has critiqued this meme on his blog.

    Americans don't need hope they need good policy. Too much contemporary political and economic analysis focuses on psychological factors. Yes, the misery and hopelessness that comes from unemployment and underemployment are real and likely fuel various social pathologies but there is nothing new or groundbreaking here.

    We know from the Great Depression and the aftermath of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe that economic problems can cause social problems. The key is to find ways to fix these problems but unfortunately the only answers we seem to get are the same ones that we have been hearing for the last 30 years.

    RepubAnon , July 29, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    I'd suggest that real hope, as opposed to false hope, is the answer. Real hope would result from good policies, false hope is engendered by suggesting that people do things such as learning to code (unless they have an aptitude for it). Even then, telling people that uprooting oneself and moving to a strange city to learn a new skill is hardly a realistic solution. One would need to rebuild one's life (and that of one's family), and still may not find a job at the end of that effort. These types of solutions increase despair, they don't kindle hope.

    What really need to happen is a big infrastructure project aimed at getting high-speed Internet connections and decent roads to the rural areas. These would make it possible for businesses to relocate satellite offices to low-cost areas, bringing jobs. People could then either train for those jobs, or get jobs in support sectors such as supermarkets, consumer stores, etc. This would offer a realistic possibility of better times, which would help people regain real hope.

    tegnost , July 29, 2017 at 10:50 am

    I'm going to have to pile on here as well, flagging volunteerism as an elite perspective that works (possibly) only when all your needs are met and you need something to get you out of the house to connect with people, while telling a poor person they should work for free might not answer any need they have and indeed likely make them feel taken advantage of. Along the same lines a poor artist friend has fielded the suggestion that she donate her artwork to charity for exposure, as the spouse of a wealthy so californian has done, then her work can be sold to support the charity instead of herself, but exposure! (We'll leave aside that the techies just want to take a picture with their iphone 7 and they'll print it out for free)

    jrs , July 29, 2017 at 11:55 am

    while being around people is often good advice, being around people does not fix the despair of unemployment (really a separate issue than poverty – as one can be poor and employed, unemployed and not poor although that situation clearly can not last).

    The despair of unemployment is fear of NOT HAVING AN INCOME period (the present reality and the fear that one won't get a job in the future either), and being around others does not fix that, whether or not one is around fellow unemployed people or people with jobs. Because you can get company from others but no relief from the raw fear about whether one will have an income to pay bills or not, because others can not help one with this. They can merely provide company and emotional support, but that doesn't pay the bills.

    Sure if for the older people social security age was lowered so they could now collect a check and then one told them to volunteer with thier free time, maybe they'd be good, but only if that need for an income is met first.

    John Wright , July 29, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    Volunteerism also has the stigma that a volunteer is of a lower class because they are working for free.

    I remember my late mother who was volunteering in her 80's at a charity. This charity also had paid employees. She had volunteered for a few months when one of the paid staffers asked her to get coffee for the staffer.

    My mother got the coffee for her. Then my mother quit.. She said the the paid workers did not respect the volunteers' time because the volunteers were willing to work for free..

    flora , July 29, 2017 at 6:13 pm

    +1.

    flora , July 29, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    adding: I know of a local worthy charity that got ripped off for 10's of thousands of dollars by a paid worker. No one checked the books because, of course, the paid worker must have been reliable and serious and trust worthy. They were being paid! after all. The IRS showing up on the doorstep because of failure to report and pay taxes finally got the attention of the self-regarding and swanning board that all was not well. Several unpaid volunteers had tried to get the board's attention for a couple of years, to no avail.

    flora , July 29, 2017 at 6:44 pm

    adding: (why does this remind me of the CalPERS board?)

    Arizona Slim , July 29, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    On Facebook, there is a group for people like your artist friend. It's called Stop Working for Free and it's growing by leaps and bounds.

    Tomonthebeach , July 29, 2017 at 3:30 am

    Alas, Washington keeps its head in the sand by relying on unrealistic measures of the cost of living. They do a poor job of correcting for regional differences. As an example, as Dean Baker and others have pointed out, rents for a 1-bedroom apartment in San Francisco exceed mortgage payments on a mansion in Omaha.

    As long as Capitol Hill is content to go with the flow, the flow will continue downhill.

    MoiAussie , July 29, 2017 at 4:14 am

    I'm close to disgusted by this analysis. It shows either a complete lack of insight into root causes, or a stubborn unwillingness to speak about them. No mention of globalisation, capitalism, financial crises, housing foreclosures, predatory corporations, or corruption of law and justice. Blather about different language used in the two Americas may score points at a sociolinguistics conference, but is otherwise unilluminating. All the framing in terms of people's "willingness to invest in the future" is bogus – it should be about "ability to create futures for themselves". Only the rich have the luxury of investing, for everyone else it's the struggle to stay afloat and perhaps improve their circumstances.

    It's big on "something needs to change" and "another approach is needed", but offers no new ideas. It seems entirely focused on mitigating the symptoms, such as despair and suicide, rather than identifying and addressing the causes. And it doesn't once question the idea that America is a rich land, as the title would have it, as opposed to a land where the many are ruthlessly and increasingly exploited by the few, a land where public assets are falling apart or being stolen for a song (post offices, anyone?). And the author seems surprised that communities that have long been oppressed and deprived are more resilient than those that have had recent opportunities to forget the lessons of the struggle to survive and prosper.

    In the end it reads as just another tacky book promotion exercise with nothing more to offer.

    Terry Flynn , July 29, 2017 at 4:45 am

    Agreed. Former colleague get all enthused about interventions that are supposed to help the poor to refocus on long-term outcomes (so as to reduce smoking/opioid use/whatever) / invest in the future, blah blah blah. As you say, the despair/lack of hope people have has to be addressed by concrete changes to the system that gives them either a secure job they value, (as well as both decent monetary compensation and other non-monetary support – carers immediately come to mind) or engages them in an activity that gives value to their lives, and ideally society too, if they're too ill to go back into full-time employment. "Concerns about the future" constitute around 20% of quality of life directly (and indirectly have huge effects in terms of magnifying the malign effects of financial/monetary shocks to a person's life).

    " Welcome to fear .It's hope, turned inside out ." – Going Postal by Terry Pratchett

    Harry , July 29, 2017 at 7:56 am

    Ah yes. They're poor because they are stupid. I am always surprised we don't explain the rich as "they're rich because they are ruthless and unprincipled".

    MoiAussie , July 29, 2017 at 10:41 am

    Blunt people do say that, and so should all. Balzac said much the same 200 years ago, and christ said something to that effect about 2000 years ago.
    To be fair, "they're rich because they are ruthless and unprincipled, or were born rich, or both".

    jrs , July 29, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    +1

    bvian , July 29, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    The system has always been rigged, maybe it's worse now than 50 years ago, maybe it's better than 100 years ago. Regardless, what changed is a business of talk radio, fox news and grievance politics that profits off of gloom and doom and specifically targets white people and rural folk. If you spend your days listening to people tell you how awful everything is, you are going to lose hope.

    Anon , July 29, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Seems to me that people can recognize a hopeless economic situation (their own) without talk radio, Fox, or politics.

    Jane , July 29, 2017 at 7:03 am

    It isn't hope that is lacking; I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't hope for a better life. What has been lost is the belief that that hope will ever be realized. People no longer believe the life they would like is achievable. When there is nothing to look forward to, nothing to strive for, hope sinks and despair rises. That's why safety nets are so important, they prevent hope from being extinguished and remind people there is a way forward, a way up.

    Ironically, the optimism shown by minorities may be an illusion; the result of closing the gap with a sinking white working class rather than of a real rise in their economic
    state. The life they hope to achieve by catching up with the white working class is no longer the life they were told they would find.

    Clive , July 29, 2017 at 10:16 am

    It (the loss of hope) gets to a lot of us -- in different ways. I'm loathed to agree with Yves' assessment that the loss of hope is a -- what's the right word? -- necessity?

    But I think Yves is right. Misplaced hope is a seductive toxin. It keeps one from making a realistic assessment of a situation and the most likely range of outcomes when analysed objectively. If you keep, irrationally, hoping for the best, you may well preclude yourself from taking more drastic but necessary steps.

    The main way the lack of hope has affected me is that I cannot now happily read anything in modern literary fiction. Once I started noticing a phenomena -- which is a variation on TV houses having unreasonably large rooms or characters having a standard of living not commensurate with their jobs -- whereby the narrative of a novel is established usually in the first chapter or so, but the author has to conjure up some outrageously contrived explanation and scenarios as to how the central characters have the time and resources to participate in whatever story arc they are about to be launched upon.

    Is the novel some sort of adventure? The lead characters have to be given a get-out for why they aren't tied to a job which occupies every waking hour either by working long hours or commuting (or both). Is it an urban fantasy genre? Where do the participants get their money from? If they work, what do they do which gives them the energy to pursue the plot line?

    If you try to read modern fiction, watch for the sudden, hamfisted, attempts to finesse these issues. I've got cynical and jaundiced at the endless parade of antiques shop owners who can conveniently close up early when a story development needs to take place. The freelance detectives/office workers/journalists who can find themselves mysteriously between assignments but not need to look for work. The poor but honest Peggy Sues who inherit a bit of money from the convenient death of a relative.

    Whenever I try to start a new modern fiction book, I brace myself for the inevitable credulity-stretching few paragraphs which have to get clumsily spliced in to achieve an explanatory fudge. I've given up hope (!) of finding one that doesn't have me throwing it in the trash.

    Chauncey Gardiner , July 29, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Clive,
    A little off-topic, but you might try a collection of short stories by Rick Bass. Just a suggestion.

    Clive , July 29, 2017 at 11:37 am

    Thanks Chauncey -- I've wasted so much time (and money!) trying to find something decent to read. The TV is now so annoying, to the point of unwatchability, I've given up apart from a couple of shows. BBC Radio 4 is down to a similarly small handful of programming that I actually enjoy. And I love to read, I don't like not having a book on the go, but do prefer modern rather than classical literature when it comes to fiction. So anything by way of recommendations from the likeminded folk in the cheap seats down here is like manna from heaven.

    Yves Smith Post author , July 29, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    If you haven't read it already, the better (not influences by Tolkein and post the 1950s-1960s SF) that is not obsessed with science and gadgetry might appeal to you. They use other worlds as frameworks to put humans or human-like creatures in social situations different than ours and play out the behaviors.

    Many readers have said they regard Ursula LeGuin's The Dispossessed as one of the ten most important books every written about politics. Her The Left Hand of Darkness is also a classic. The space opera A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge is a great book. Readers probably have suggestions outside warhorses like these.

    Synoia , July 29, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    Yes, the characters on Tolkien have the flexibility to wander off without notice, and seem to only eat once every few chapters.

    I'd recommend Cyril Kornbluth's The Syndic as a good description of our current utopia. Prescient almost.

    I do not read Science Fiction any more. I do not have the correct optimistic view of the future I once had.

    I share Clive's irritation? dislike? of the contrived scenarios which do not account for having to work (including the commute) 11 to 15 hours a day.

    I'd point out that fiction in the past generally revolved around the class formerly known as "The Idle Rich."

    I suggest for fun read "Diary of a Country Parson" by Woodforde. Pay particular attention to his description of meals.

    jsn , July 29, 2017 at 11:51 am

    I think it was Shaw who said, "cynicism is a word frequently used to describe accurate perception by people who don't have it."

    Dandelion , July 29, 2017 at 11:57 am

    Very few American writers deal with class reality. I recommend "American Rust," by Philip Meyer, "The Beans of Egypt, Maine," by Carolyn Chute, and, for the office workers, "And Then We Came To The End," by Joshua Ferris.

    jrs , July 29, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    i can just imagine reading these and wanting to kill myself though entertainment that provides no escape from reality – ouch.

    jrs , July 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    is it a love affair? where are the fights about money if sharing finances, and even worries about money that cause pain to the relationship even if not?

    Rosairo , July 29, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Clive,
    I don't know if you have already heard of it but look into The Stockdale Paradox if not.

    Heraclitus , July 29, 2017 at 8:53 am

    It's ironic that discrimination against both blacks and poor whites was much more overt back in the day. In our Southern cotton mill towns, 'lint head' was a worse deprecation than the n-word (which is not to say that blacks were not at the bottom of the totem pole). Nevertheless, people who grew up working in the cotton mills did, in many cases, move to better lives. They often owned their own homes, and the paternalistic mill owners actually provided recreation facilities, scholarships, and supplemented the pay of local teachers. One woman, who, like many of the workers, came from the mountains to the foothills to work in the mill, said: 'I never saw running water or a toilet until I started working in the mill.'

    Blurtman , July 29, 2017 at 9:05 am

    These types of studies suffer from a certain amount of GIGO. To base the definition of a group upon European colonization is absurd. There are "Hispanics" of all races. Vanna White is Hispanic. In this day of ancestry.com genomic analysis, a credible study should include at least three determinants of race/ethnicity: self-identification, third-party identification and genomic analysis.

    ambrit , July 29, 2017 at 10:54 am

    Race and ethnicity are good for only so far in modern sociological analyses. Call me what you will but I see "class" as independent of either. Any version of "True Believer" Meritocracy would see this clearly and act accordingly. Of course, there is no such thing as a "true" version of anything. The Meritocracy we suffer under today is just another 'mongrelized' shibboleth.
    "Self identification" should also be broken down into "aspirational" self identification and "cold hard desperational" self realization. The "meet me in St Louis" personal future vision serves the same purpose as "Bread and Circuses" did for the Roman Empires' elites. Well, now, the "Bread" part of that scheme is being short-sightedly whittled away by the Powers. No grand conspiracy is needed to do any of this. Plain old greed and incompetence are all that is required for an adequate explanation.

    tony , July 29, 2017 at 11:31 am

    'Asian' is even worse. Pakistanis, Japanese and Indonesians have almost nothing in common apart from arbitrary definition of what is a continent.

    That being said, neuroticism varies between groups, and it is also a pretty stable variable across a human life. Optimistic people are optimistic in even in adverse circumstances.

    Enquiring Mind , July 29, 2017 at 11:44 am

    Your mention of Vanna White made me think about when we will all have to buy a vowel instead of using it for free, soon followed by all those consonants. No doubt, there is someone, somewhere, working on monetization of language. Über could even charge extra for the umlaut. /s

    WobblyTelomeres , July 29, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    Some how, some way, Larry Summers will be nosing about when it happens.

    GlassHammer , July 29, 2017 at 10:39 am

    "The technological displacement of low-skilled jobs is here to stay – and is an important issue for many countries, well beyond the US. Addressing this issue will require longer-term changes, such as education and incentives that provide the young in economic desserts the tools to move to where the new jobs are. "

    Skill development (education) is not a problem/priority when capital has access to a global workforce and ever cheaper labor. You can keep your production process rudimentary and find a workforce willing to work for a pittance. If you happen to need a worker with skills/education you can select a qualified one from any nation on the planet.

    Has it dawned on anyone that "access to the global-workforce" is one of the primary reasons that the U.S. has some of the worst schools in the world but has some of the best universities?

    Anonim222 , July 29, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Best universities. Even that is false now. Your average graduate has a similar level than a high-school student from Asia or Europe. I have taken engineering at university and some mates who when to the US to study as a part of exchange programs said that it was just a joke

    It turns out that letting education become another profit center does not produce the best outcomes. But hey no wonder, the leitmotiv of predatory capitalism: the worst possible product at the highest possible price has also been applied to your universities.

    Your elites have devastated your country, sold its industrial base, stolen its infraestructures and corroded everything. It's just a matter of time you lose what remains of your global leadership.

    Ned , July 29, 2017 at 11:09 am

    The "scenes can only be shot in a large rooms, or sets with no back walls creating false illusions of how wage earners live" comment is incredibly astute. Americans watch thousands of hours of TV and movies and subconsciously must compare their living situation to what's portrayed therein.

    Besides all mentioned, I would like to add one more never mentioned item; as a former resident of San Francisco, the most phony and enraging thing is that people in movies and TV always get a parking place in front of their destination.

    The reality is that drivers in urban areas waste ten, twenty or more minutes searching for legal parking after a long tiring day at work, are raped financially by parking meters, tickets and street sweeping zones.

    Yes, I moved to the suburbs. The availability of unlimited safe parking was like regaining vision that I never knew I missed until I could see again.

    SerenityNow , July 29, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Parking is not a right-it is street space usually owned (and often freely given) by a municipality. That municipalities wish to manage the use of their space property should surprise no one. No one has the "right" to drive a motor vehicle and be able to temporarily store it wherever they want at little or no cost! The real travesty is that we have spent decades creating a built environment where for many, cars are the ONLY way to get around.

    It didn't have to be that way. If you lived in a place where you had to pay the actual cost of motor vehicle operation, but we're also able to easily live without one, you'd never worry about parking again.

    Ned , July 29, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    The Green Planner flashes his lantern of truth to light the way .
    IF effective mass transit were available everywhere, your argument would hold more water. You work the only job you can find and transit is not an option. What are you supposed to do? Starve so that some Tesla or Range Rover driver can get the space that you so graciously left for them?

    Let me carry–what I believe is your point of view!over to other things:
    Housing and food is not a right either. If people had to pay the true cost of living in structures and raping the earth to eat, the more enlightened of them would realize that it would be better to commit suicide.

    jrs , July 29, 2017 at 6:24 pm

    the basic problem seems apartments etc. designed without parking spaces, but if they are very old buildings dating back to when the automobile was just coming out then that's the way it was (and of course some of san fran is quite old). Some mid century apartments also seem to have been stupidly designed this way for no particular reason it seems (just stupid).

    Yes municipalities should go all in for public transit, and we as citizens should push them too. Build really really good public transit in all major cities (ok it's never going to be a panacea for rural people, but the big cities, it is possible). But individuals make the choices they do in the city spaces we actually have now.

    SerenityNow , July 29, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    Mass transit is not the only alternative to a car-centered built environment–I never called for mass transit anyway. I am instead suggesting we could have built our areas of habitation so that cars are not the most convenient (most heavily subsidized) travel mode. Driving is cheap and convenient because we've made a lot of decisions to keep it that way. And if you don't think it's cheap, you might be missing how expensive it is in other places.

    You're right that we don't pay the true cost of a lot of things, and if we did, all aspects of modern life would be much more inconvenient. But the degree to which we subsidize a lifestyle based on automotive accessibility is especially noxious, and disproportionately affects the disenfranchised. Yes, there's not much we can do about it now. But people believing they have a right to store their large machines on public property (for free) for any length of time doesn't help.

    Synoia , July 29, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    To live in a City – lose the car. That's obvious to me.

    rps , July 29, 2017 at 11:12 am

    "He that lives upon Hope will die fasting." Benjamin Franklin. Poor Richard's Almanac

    Alejandro , July 29, 2017 at 11:19 am

    The possibilities of what could be are crafted in the imagination, and the wretchedness of 'what-is' can be a powerful source of motivation. However, captured imaginations, the target of TINA, where this crafting is stifled and semiotics are displaced with a preference to conjure the mystical through religiose pious fiction, noble lies, magnificent myths etc., and more recently through pseudo-science with "magi-matical" preciseness, disguising class dogma behind an aura of {irrefutable} scientific 'credibility', has a long history hopium without wherewithal seems the road to frustration for the have-nots, yet the toll-gates always seem occupied by the haves.

    Then there's gestation v. microwavable expectations , i.e., sowing and reaping v. reaping without sowing with amazon 2day delivery insidious unilateral power of dependency.

    rps , July 29, 2017 at 11:24 am

    "The rugged face of society, checkered with the extremes of affluence and want, proves that some extraordinary violence has been committed upon it, and calls on justice for redress. The great mass of the poor in all countries are become an hereditary race, and it is next to impossible for them to get out of that state of themselves. It ought also to be observed that this mass increases in all countries that are called civilized. More persons fall annually into it than get out of it." Thomas Paine. Agrarian Justice. 1795

    edmondo , July 29, 2017 at 11:39 am

    I know that this is an important paper because it has footnotes and if you want someone to take your seriously, you gotta have a lot of footnotes.

    For a more mundane view of hope, poverty and despair, you may want to read this guy. Be forewarned, no footnotes.

    https://www.thisappalachialife.com/single-post/2017/06/28/Poverty-Privilege-and-the-Dead-American-Dream

    https://www.thisappalachialife.com/single-post/2017/05/16/Being-Poor-Aint-Cheap

    WobblyTelomeres , July 29, 2017 at 11:56 am

    Yves: I wonder about the emphasis on hope

    Hope is cheap. Real solutions aren't.

    ambrit: No grand conspiracy is needed to do any of this. Plain old greed and incompetence are all that is required for an adequate explanation.

    There it is.

    Bobby Gladd , July 29, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    "Hope is dope, and dope is hope." – Vietnam war GI saying.

    fco , July 29, 2017 at 11:57 am

    Moving to the US from a "third world country" riddled with graft and corruption, it was amazing to see Americans complain so much when they had it so good. That was 45 years ago.

    Now, it looks like the US is turning into the country I came from.

    Back home ( and yes, it seems I still think of it as home, go figure) religion and its offer of salvation and hope, not to mention the acceptance of your lot in life, was the opiate of the poor. Here in the US, real opioids are readily accessible to those who have lost hope.

    What's interesting is that now the jobs have moved over to my country of origin, the middle class has quite improved, whereas in the US, where people always seemed to have it easy, are now the ones that are in desperation.

    Who or what to blame off the top of my head, Americans were prone to think they were the center of the world, that they were number one. We, too, in other countries were made to think that. Complacency kills. So does trust in elected officials who cater to multinational corporations and financial behemoths.

    William Neil , July 29, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    Here is a brief but powerful paper on the correlations between "Deaths of Despair" – the ills of rural Red State America – and voting support for Trump, by counties: http://aese.psu.edu/directory/smm67/Election16.pdf

    The very strange thing about the American economy today is that a good portion of the top 20% of the income distribution live in the realm of the two "happy" indicators: the low unemployment rate and low inflation, which is not the reality that 60-70% of the nation is feeling, as expressed both in the Sanders campaign and the election of Trump.

    In reality, the upper 20% of the nation are living in, still, the "roaring 1990's" of the Clinton Dreams, while many are experiencing 1929-1932 despair, even if the objective conditions are not as horrific.

    If the nation could only cross the Rubicon of intervention into Neoliberal Labor Markets, via a WPA and CCC when the whole economy collapsed, it would help meet those needing work half-way but it won't/can't. The Neoliberal rigidity on what government can and can't do in labor markets is the obstacle, intellectual and practical. That helps explain why we can't get to FDR's Second Bill of Rights from 1944 and "the Right to a Job" or MMT's job guarantee program (as advocated by L. Randall Wray) despite so much of the nation's needed work not being addressed: social, structural and environmental.

    These tensions have played out inside the Democratic Party. The Clinton's think tank, the Center for American Progress, has played two notes. In December of 2015 they put out a long policy paper touting Apprenticeship Programs to fill the business cry for the "jobs-skills gap," and it was followed by a number of shorter follow-up policy pieces pushing this direction. Then came the "Ideas" Conference of May 16th, 2017, where they proposed a Marshall Plan-WPA inspired targeted jobs guarantee program for a portion of those needed work, those without a college degree. It didn't take, as the conference speeches an panels on that day clearly showed, and this is how I interpret Senator Schumer's "Better Deal" Op-Ed in the New York Times on July 24th. Apprenticeship programs have won out, and industry is happy to have the public pick up as much of the cost as they can manage to shift.

    I don't think this meets the need I see presented in today's posting by Carol Graham, or the one I linked to by Professor Shannon Monnat from Penn State. Hardly.

    roxan , July 29, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    I come from one of those desolate towns people talk about so much these days. My mother always said the steel mill was a good company because they didn't pay in scrip, and they built decent houses, paved streets, provided the utilities and so on. Eventually, they even built a community center and library. At Christmas, they put on a parade.

    That is all gone. The steel mills and mine are not only closed, the mill has mostly been torn down. When I had to go back to care for my mother in 2004 I was shocked–downtown had always been crowded with traffic. Now, I could have slept in Main Street with no danger of being run over. All the stores were empty, or had turned into 'coffee shops' i.e. gambling dens. Even our dignified old bank building was now a coffee shop! At first I thought the coffee fad had reached us, and remarked on that to a neighbor I saw coming out of one. She laughed and said, "I work in there. We just pour whiskey, that's all. It's one-armed bandits, no fit place for women."

    I could not buy the most basic things, such as getting a lock installed and a key made, glass for the windows, lumber, or even cement. The house was falling down but I couldn't buy what I needed. We lived in a nice suburban area, but most of the street was abandoned. Next door, I saw a guy who looked like Cletus (in the Simpsons) building an actual camp fire in the front yard! I was going to ask him to clean up the rat infested garbage pile in the driveway, but decided it was best to avoid him.

    No one had work. One relative's teenage boy was loading trucks at night for sub-minimum wage and happy to have that. His mother, Linda, was subsisting on her mother's social security. The old lady had a stroke in middle-age, could not move and screamed constantly. She had to be lifted from bed to chair and diapered. Linda had done that since the 1980s, and now had heart trouble herself. She had no earning skills and was trying to hang onto the house. If she put her mother in a home, they would all have been out in the gutter.

    Even as an RN, I could only find a few $10 hr jobs, not enough to live on considering the long commute. I had to go back to the East Coast, and send money home to hire aides. I met a lot of absolutely desperate people. One lady, who offered to help with Mom, was taking care of her uncle and father, who both had dementia. My mother was violent, listened to nothing and was difficult to manage. Aides quit as fast as I hired them but I was trying to hang onto our family home which would be lost if I put her in a nursing home.

    I did not see anyone sitting around drunk or stoned, and never saw that when I grew up either. I think all those tales about violent, drunken hillbillies are just that–tall tales. Most of the young people I met were going into the service. I found them to be good steady people who did what I asked and felt bad I couldn't pay them more. They were having a very hard time, as there were no jobs one could drive to whatsoever. It is the same throughout the entire Ohio Valley. A wasteland.

    The military seems to provide a decent solution but young people shouldn't have to risk dying in order to get an education. My suggestion would be something like the old CCC. Learning skills is not enough. People need to get away from the whole area and learn how to live in 'the world' as Appalachians refer to the larger society. I had more than one young person come up to me and exclaim, "I heard you was out in the WORLD. What's it like?"

    Yves Smith Post author , July 29, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    This is so sad and it must be terribly stressful for you too.

    William Neil , July 29, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    Thanks Roxan. I live in a county in Western Maryland which is formally part of the legal jurisdiction of the Appalachian Regional Commission, set up by Congress to bring the 13 state area up to "modern" standards of infrastructure, education and I suppose, "the way the rest of us live." I think the funding averages about $13 million per year per state, hardly making a dent; it does offer loans for creative types with business ideas, including some green ones. And I think the Trump Admin. zeroed out the funding, if not out right reached for the organization's abolition, in their current budget proposals.

    But you are right, something much more powerful in terms of outreach and structure is necessary. A new CCC and WPA, yes, but much harder to achieve today, and the mission more complex than the originals, which served mainly all young unemployed men. Today it will be multi-racial, gendered and aged I don't know whether it is good to design it for the ARC needs to take the citizens out of the region

    I think the structure and cultural imperatives of work, including the psychological benefits, are the way to go rather than the "guaranteed" annual income so fashionable among parts of the left, and even with some Libertarians like Charles Murray.

    For most of the work designs I've been thinking of, additional training will be necessary, it's going to take more than a week of orientation, and flexibility will be crucial. I try to keep the idea alive, difficult for the reasons I put forth in first comment above, to be ready with at least some prototype, pioneer examples, to be ready for the next great economic crisis. But, of course, the crisis is already here in this region (and the urban ghettos for how long now half-a-century or more )

    roxan , July 29, 2017 at 7:17 pm

    People need self-respect, and that comes from feeling competent. If you feel you can't do anything worthwhile and never will, pretty soon you don't see any point in living.

    Yes, a modern WPA or CCC of some sort, would certainly be different. I doubt there is any funding, too. Has anyone ever had the idea of holding town halls to find out what people in these areas think would work?

    As for the Democrats, I remember when Kerry came to campaign in 2004. He went to the town across the river, and hardly got out of his stretch limo. I had planned to go see him, but they locked down both towns, and closed the bridge across the Ohio. I saw him on TV, making a speech to what appeared to be a cheering crowd. Later, I read in the paper they had paid a few old union guys to wave signs. He clearly had no interest in us. I was disgusted, remembering how JFK came to our town and and discovered–guess what? Appalachian poverty!

    William Neil , July 29, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    Yes roxan, I've been trying to get some momentum going for a CCC in our region because it has a strong environmental ethic, working very hard to successfully ban fracking. Trying for three years now.

    I must have done a half-dozen postings at the Daily Kos on the topic, but there is just a blank when it comes to alternative thinking about the economy, except for the decentralizing, self-sufficiency, farm to table greens.

    The opposition to Trump met to plan with a good turnout in Cumberland in early February, and there were three or four major directions apparent. But by early April, only the feminist caucus was still going, and they're decidedly not interested in the political economy.

    Some of the small green businesses who supplied the leadership for the anti-fracking campaign have struck me as being threatened by a program that might pay $15.00 per hour plus benefits – which a CCC/WPA should do because they are competing for cheap labor as well, and find that threatening. They'll never say that openly, but the local organic farmers rely on a program called WWOOF, which is like a hostel arrangement without wages; the young nomads come and work on the organic farms, learn something, get room and board, but no wages. Here at http://wwoof.net/ Is this whole movement a serious hobby or a new economy in the making? It is troubled by all the ancient problems of small scale agriculture: turning a profit and paying wages without turning the workers into a scorned minority, like the migrants.

    I think a green CCC with locally designed projects to help farmers with some of their other traditional problems – manure storage and management, fencing to keep livestock out of streams, and so forth, plus all sorts of needed restoration projects (wetlands, contiguous forests, pulling invasives, fencing large areas and culling deer to restore native vegetation ) which also should be designed for what they plant and where, multiple purposes, to combat global warming, could supply a lot of purpose to countless lives.

    I'm continually amazed at the resistance; cultural, economic, ideologically, and sad to say, in too many cases, traditional business opposition to a "better deal" for labor, green causes or not. Plus the great American tradition of stigmatizing those who have served time or had addictions, who need the most help, and need purpose in their lives.

    I don't know if we'll get there without a major collapse that forces the issue, forces eveyone to face the truth that the private sector can't meet our human needs as currently constituted.

    My Congressman, John Delaney, got a written outline from me in a small meeting with him and just one staffer: he was stony faced about it and has never shown any interest. If you know about his plans for "infrastructure" – the terms on which he proposes to bring all that idle American "capital" home, you'll know why.

    I've also done presentations in front of the city of Cumberland's Mayor and Council: it's a city in a county with 5,000 derelict structures: collapsing, abandoned, vacant. Lot's of work to handle them and turn some into affordable housing perfect match some sympathy at the council, but they also looked like I was proposing a mission to Neptune. Can't get more basic about the needs in this situation this is a problem in all the old de-industrialized cities, as well as throughout Red rural America as you so dramatically showed us.

    Until I hear better proposals, I don't intend to stop pushing it. I also see this as a way to get some more "democracy" into economics, proposing, planning, refining the work that needs to be done another route that at times seems more logical, and ought to be easier, than democratizing the workplace at Target or Home Depot – or Walmart.

    I'm sure that if that national, state and local conservation groups got behind this, they could come up with, easily, enough compelling projects to keep everyone at full employment for decades. I've proposed a few myself. Enough for now.

    Clive , July 29, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    If nothing else, your comment gives me hope that there's still such a thing as human decency -- which you exhibit.

    My grandmother lived to be 101 years old and, unlike your mother, enjoyed good health or, perhaps better put not bad health considering her great age. She still lived in the town she was born in and was one of those sorts who never left where they grew up. But my father, even in the late 1970's, read the writing on the wall and moved us around (even becoming expats) before settling in the south / south east (of England).

    It's a little shameful -- but honest -- to say that I loathed visits. I made excuses and did the minimum I could get away with. My Dad was the same. Although my grandmother enjoyed the last vestiges of the social safety net we still cling on to here (local county provided sheltered accommodation which had a warden and was fully accessible for someone who might not be that mobile, social workers visiting every couple of weeks, visiting nurses, a doctor who did house calls and care workers twice a day to help with personal care and nutrition) and we didn't need to concern ourselves with that side of her situation, when we visited, we felt like fish out of water.

    The metropolitan sophistication and, yes, affluence, of London and the southeast made the grimness, poverty and ingrained loss of hope (there's that word again) depressing to be around. Our self awareness of our newfound snobby elitism made our discomfort even worse. It was no use, or at least not honest and too much cognitive dissonance, to try to pretend that we didn't find the small town mentality hard to take.

    But then living with either no, or only poor quality jobs at minimum wage (the town is an subscale inland port, literally the last place you come to at the end of the freeway and after that it is more-or-less you fall into the North Sea) -- well, escaping is nigh on impossible with our dismally low social mobility. And the town can forget about government funded regeneration or benefitting from an industrial policy.

    The short version was (both my dad and I tacitly and unspokenly concluded) that it was easier -- for us, being selfish -- to stay away. So I can fully understand the selflessness and sense of duty you've shown. It makes you a better person than I am.

    Of course, none of us should have to make these unpalatable choices. There shouldn't be anywhere in our countries where we feel simultaneously alienat ed and alienat ing .

    Sue , July 29, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    Roxan,

    I like how you write. This is a very despairing present and outlook

    "Most of the young people I met were going into the service..The military seems to provide a decent solution but young people shouldn't have to risk dying in order to get an education"
    A solution from no other choice. Some of the youngsters will understandably make a virtue out of necessity & claim patriotic duty as their calling. The avenues to patriotism & what patriotism is for every patriot are various. Patriotism is another big word.

    Synoia , July 29, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    The military seems to provide a decent solution but young people shouldn't have to risk dying in order to get an education

    Join the Air Force. Only Officers get shot at.

    Sue , July 29, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Good suggestion. How many positions are open in the joystick and gps drone division?

    Eureka Springs , July 29, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    Nor should people should have to murder to get an education.

    makedoanmend , July 29, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    Strumpet City (both a book and TV series) is a story about how the working class of Dublin, Ireland go on strike for better pay and working conditions. The strike is broken and the Irish story hero is last seen in a British military uniform sailing away from his home and wife to fight for a foreign government in some foreign land. (Although fictionalised, this story is a dramatisation of actual historical events.)

    The story was set at the turn of new 20th century. I suppose not all that much has changed at the turn of the new 21st century.

    The monied want more and then the poor by necessity set off to fight the impoverished of foreign lands in the name of

    Sound of the Suburbs , July 29, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Where did it all go wrong?

    The populists, Trump and Brexit are all symptoms of the same underlying problem.

    Neo-liberalism was seen as a one size fits all model for the world.

    When the neo-liberal model worked everyone was fairly happy with it before 2008.

    Then it stopped working and no one seems to know how to get it working like it used to before.

    The underlying economics, neoclassical economics, doesn't look at private debt in the economy and so no one was really aware the whole thing was running on easy credit.

    The US economists that developed these ideas were missing certain critical information.

    Monetary theory has been regressing for one hundred years:

    "A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence" Richard A. Werner
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477

    It has never been accurate in their life times and has only ever known by a few.

    Milton Freidman started with "fractional reserve theory" and then moved to "financial intermediation theory". His early monetarism didn't work because the "fractional reserve theory" was flawed. "Financial intermediation theory" is even worse but its problems remained hidden until 2008.

    The US history of capitalism missed problems in the Old World.

    The US was a new country where lots of land remained unclaimed. In the Old World the landed Aristocracy were constantly pushing up wage costs with their rentier ways. The rents of the Aristocracy had to be paid by business in wages reducing their profits.

    The Classical Economists of the 19th Century were only too aware of the two sides of capitalism, the productive side where wealth creation takes place and the parasitic side where wealth extraction takes place.

    It all disappears in very early neoclassical economics.

    The distinction between "earned" income (wealth creation) and "unearned" income (wealth extraction) disappears and the once separate areas of "capital" and "land" are conflated.

    The problems with rentier activity in the economy are hidden in economics.

    These things disappeared so long ago everyone forgot about them, but a free trade world required a low cost of living to pay internationally competitive wages.

    The repeal of the Corn Laws to usher in the era of Laissez-Faire.

    The landed aristocracy wanted high corn prices to get more land rent.

    The businessmen wanted lower corn prices, to lower the cost of living, for lower, internationally competitive wages.

    The conflict between rentier and business interests with free trade.

    Cat Burglar , July 29, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    I flag the idea "economic desserts [sic}" in the second to last paragraph. A region with no work, nowhere to buy or sell anything, and no assets of significant value? I wonder how you could map it, and how much of the area of the nation would fall into that category.

    I've worked in one, a Central Oregon county that almost had to close its road department because of the lack of tax revenue. Tree cutting and mill work disappeared decades ago. Ranching is the core of the economy, but that is less labor-intensive than ever, and dealers of equipment and materials are all in other counties. Starting a family ranch is impossible if you're not already a multimillionaire. For many years the tiny Chevrolet dealer was the largest employer in the county.

    Economic desert is an apt descriptor for places like that. The kids have been leaving for generations already -- the author of the article suggests education and training programs that will make it easier for them to leave. No other suggestion. No ideas for regional economic development, for example.

    jerry , July 29, 2017 at 5:55 pm

    Speaking of lack of hope, it occurs to me that the only way a Bernie/progressive agenda would possibly be adopted by the DNC is if the republicans were doing ok or good from a legislative and presidential standpoint, because then this puts the pressure on the Dems to put forth something that works and change their ways if they want to win back power.

    However, since we are witnessing a truly impressive trainwreck and lack of competence on the part of the right, both within the house adopting legislation and within the presidency itself that is doing god knows what on any given day, all the Dems have to do is sit back and watch, and wait for their turn at the booth. As there are only two options in this wonderful system of ours, the American citizens have nowhere else to go come 2018 and 2020.. the slogan "at least we're not them" will be enough – with some "progressive" tidbits thrown in for good measure a la Schumers' latest proposal.

    ckimball , July 29, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    I had to make myself read this. My mind diverted to word hope and what makes it become an experience. Just to add a little to it.
    I resented Obama for selling hope while he was doing it. It seemed a manufactured hope as opposed
    to organic hope (such as hope arises in response to something that occurs that does not seem possible).I believe that for most black people the existence of Barack Obama's candidacy and then his victory generated a huge quota of hope. It was palpable to many of us and elicited some unsolicited hope in us too.
    I believe this emotional state trumped and trumps the reasons listed in this article. The above was
    transformative and perhaps many black people may feel more entitled to express their anger now.
    Another example of hope arising from something that occurred that does not seem possible in the short term is same sex marriage. Both of these segments of our population have been injected with hope
    unlike the "poor" category which have been inflicted both emotionally and physically with loss and
    disillusionment. The erosion of the public domain is an attack on the ideals and property of the working people of this country.

    Geophrian , July 29, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    For what it's worth, here was my attempt at making a movie about the reality of life in America:

    http://www.fraymovie.com

    c_heale , July 29, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    "Poor blacks are also half as likely to experience stress – a significant marker of ill-being – on a daily basis as are poor whites, while poor Hispanics are about two-thirds as likely."

    I'm not sure this piece of research is correct. I haven't checked the reference, but I'm sure I read another piece of research a while back that said that suffering from racism causes a great deal of stress and psychological problems. The whole article appears to be a lot of waffle in my opinion. For example how can you possibly define hope. I once read that if you read a piece of research and you can't think of a way that an experiment can be done to show the results, then the research is invalid. I can't think of any experiment that can measure such an abstract concept as hope (the concept of hope is far more abstract than anger, for example).

    DSP , July 29, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    For some reason I can no longer reply to the relevant comment.This is an addition to "jane @ 7-03".
    One of the most interesting things that has happened over my lifetime has been the almost complete disappearance of the past for the younger and the modern age.The element that I'm referring to is older proverbs and aphorisms,in this case "Hope makes a good breakfast but a poor supper".
    I've also been told that each of the "Friends" would have to be earning $130,000 each to live their lifestyle and they wouldn't be loafing about on the sofa doing it.
    Does anybody in America earn 130K rather than more or less?

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

    Highly recommended!
    The problem is that that appointing a Special Prosecutor was a special operation directed against Trump. So Session behavior was the behavior of enabler of this special operation. Whether he did so because he was afraid of of being tarred and feathered with Russian connections himself, or he simply behayed Trump is unknown. But reclusing himself in such a critical for Trump Presidency matter is probably betrayal in any case.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation. ..."
    "... For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. ..."
    "... Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation. ..."
    "... I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean. ..."
    "... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
    "... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
    Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    different clue -> Kooshy... Kooshy, 25 July 2017 at 08:52 PM

    The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation.

    Trump would then want his new Attorney General to fire Mueller and fire whomever Mueller reports to. I can't think of any other reason why Trump would want Sessions removed.

    For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. The problem here is that Trump has such a trashy personality and such all-around trashy behavior that pure spite and irritation for no good reason at all is just as good a motive for Trump to want Sessions gone.

    Sessions won't want to go. He has a legal-ideological mission at Justice. He won't resign. He will tough it out in place as long as he can.

    Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation.

    bks -> different clue... 25 July 2017 at 09:52 PM

    Perhaps Trump asked sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

    different clue -> bks ... 26 July 2017 at 12:23 AM

    bks,

    That could be, but we will never know as long as Sessions remains AG. Because Sessions will remain focused on the DoJ mission, and not get involved in a spat-fight with Trump.

    Also, if indeed Trump did ask Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions declined to do so; perhaps Sessions has given Trump reason to understand that firing Sessions would play right into the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative which the Remove Trump forces are engineering.

    And perhaps Sessions will have given Trump reason to understand further that even having given Sessions the reQUEST to fire Mueller could in itself further the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative. But in the event of imparting that further level of understanding unto the Trumpster, Sessions will then have followed up by reassuring Trump that as long as Trump does not fire Sessions, no one need ever know that Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller. In the event of all these dominoes having fallen "just so" in a private discussion between these two men, Sessions will have reassured Trump that "no one need ever know about the request" . . . for as long as Sessions remains AG without being fired.

    This is all pure speculation following on from your speculative question. We of the Great Uncleared will never know what has or hasn't been said behind the locked doors of steel and oak.

    Kooshy -> different clue...25 July 2017 at 11:29 PM

    I agree with the first part of your comment, but IMO the reason he wants Muller (or any Special investigator) removed is that he don't want his past business dealing and tax returns to be investigated, IMO they are scared of old days business deals, write off etc. and i think that's what Demos and Borg wants to pull out in a legal public way, and not the Russian connection. IMO the real sewer lies in past business and tax deals.

    ked -> Kooshy... 26 July 2017 at 02:05 PM

    If the "real sewer lies in past business and tax deals" and those happen to be penetrated by "the Russian connection", what then?

    LondonBob -> Kooshy... 27 July 2017 at 05:42 AM

    I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean.

    Sessions offered his resignation a while back after he recused himself, Trump refused. Spicer went quickly and quietly, so would Sessions if he wanted him gone.

    VietnamVet said... 25 July 2017 at 06:34 PM

    PT

    This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.

    It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet. Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:

    "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of."

    Augustin L said... 25 July 2017 at 09:41 PM

    John Helmer on Jared Kushner's testinomonial to stupidity and unfitness. http://johnhelmer.net/jared-kushners-testimonial-to-stupidity-and-unfitness-american-and-russian/

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... target for military conquest ..."
    "... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
    "... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
    "... uncritical' ..."
    "... critically' ..."
    "... democracy succeeds ..."
    "... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
    "... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
    "... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
    "... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
    "... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
    "... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
    "... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
    "... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
    "... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
    "... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
    May 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Introduction

    On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress' and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing powerful US oligarchs.

    For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.

    The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs, have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats of judicial action).

    Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as it now exists in the United States.

    In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests.

    What the 'Conflict' is Not About

    Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.

    What the Oligarchical Struggle is About

    There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars and 'interventions'.

    While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and means.

    For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest . Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US military dominance.

    Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities

    The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela. They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.

    These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition' denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition' of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.

    Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs' struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional order.

    Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State

    The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.

    The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session (a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally within the Judiciary.

    The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.

    The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR), which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations, academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust the President.

    The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party.

    The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.

    Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment, taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.

    The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.

    Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.

    The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.

    Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American Zionists.

    But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's overseas opposition.

    NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.

    In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact on the domestic correlation of forces.

    Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.

    While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical , not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.

    Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen; and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.

    The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of former President Obama's seven wars.

    While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.

    Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.

    Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser reductions in social programs.

    Conclusion

    The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.

    The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.

    The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.

    Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.

    The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.

    Epilogue

    After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.

    The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the 'Oval Office'.

    The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.

    Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals. The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.

    The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!

    jilles dykstra > , June 1, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT

    " In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "

    Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
    In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable.

    So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation, is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration into Europe, and so on, and so forth.

    Sergey Krieger > , June 1, 2017 at 8:45 am GMT

    Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now.

    The Alarmist > , June 1, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT

    It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate.

    The Alarmist > , June 1, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT

    @The Alarmist

    Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."

    Robert Magill > , June 1, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

    The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!

    Long live the Oligarchs!

    "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/

    Sergey Krieger > , June 1, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

    @The Alarmist The good thing there is no Hillary statue over there to fell under.

    Vlad > , June 1, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

    This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard.

    jacques sheete > , June 1, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

    All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.

    The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic, either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.

    It was designed and has functioned always as a de facto resoligrcharum .

    It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though it is an agonizingly slow process

    animalogic > , June 1, 2017 at 12:33 pm GMT

    This is a very good, thought provoking article.

    Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements. He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.

    What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues" become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get away with it)

    A couple of negative points in the article:

    Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ? "Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "

    Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid – they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.

    More positively: authorise spot ON here:

    "The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart."

    Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

    Mar 20, 2015 The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)

    Daniel Sanchez combines the theories of Robert Higgs and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to form a theory of the cycle of the state.

    Joseph E Fasciani > , Website June 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

    A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance.

    Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT

    May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American Democracy

    Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.

    Stephen Paul Foster > , Website June 1, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT

    Consider one of the most odious oligarchs of all time, Ted Kennedy. What damage he did.

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/06/edward-teddy-kennedy-how-lecher-became.html

    aandrews > , June 1, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete Resoligrcharum. Definition?

    jacques sheete > , June 1, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT

    @aandrews

    Resoligrcharum. Definition?

    Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."

    Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."

    PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could have imagined,

    nickels > , June 1, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.

    Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann

    jacques sheete > , June 2, 2017 at 12:29 am GMT

    @Agent76

    This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann

    Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on another fabulous UNZ site.:

    Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.

    "One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
    - Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov15-00297

    jacques sheete > , June 2, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT

    @nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.

    This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

    mises.org/daily/4254

    RobinG > , June 2, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT

    @The Alarmist

    Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks email leaker.

    On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.

    Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.

    The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.

    Sign here:

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    elderlyrstaff > , Website June 2, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT

    A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob. The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed. The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).

    Dr. Doom > , June 2, 2017 at 2:47 am GMT

    Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs" are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp, its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end of business tomorrow.

    This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually mattered?

    Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of the World as you know it, but I feel fine.

    Joe Levantine > , June 2, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

    " it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent, or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force, they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed

    From Machiavelli's The Prince

    If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY RULING CLASS.

    If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.

    Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put him in an ever weaker position.

    nickels > , June 2, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.

    Agent76 > , June 2, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book Propaganda literally titled propaganda.

    Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda

    Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations. This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."

    alan2102 > , June 2, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete "It was designed and has functioned always as a de facto resoligrcharum"

    Congratulations! It is rare that google gets completely stumped, but such is the case with "resoligrcharum". Try it. You'll see what I mean.

    vx37 > , June 2, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT

    In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests.

    This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism" is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.

    - – – –
    "If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph Sobran

    Che Guava > , June 2, 2017 at 8:19 pm GMT

    That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.

    I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.

    All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.

    RobinG > , June 2, 2017 at 11:21 pm GMT

    @Che Guava "Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."

    How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?

    Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation are what need investigating.

    Agent76 > , June 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT

    @Joseph E Fasciani

    A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.

    May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention

    Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset. If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but at what point do the American People say enough is enough?

    Che Guava > , June 3, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

    @RobinG "Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."

    How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?

    Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened, as long as I keep track of where they are..

    Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.

    So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.

    Madness.

    Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.

    After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised his voice against it.

    My opinion is that he acts mainly out of guilt

    RobinG > , June 3, 2017 at 9:49 pm GMT

    @Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump was a different guy in the campaign, no?)

    Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement

    Che Guava > , June 4, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

    @RobinG Thanks, RobinG,

    I am a long-time Cynthia Mckinney fan, at the time she was in Congress, her and Ron Paul's were the only interesting voices.

    Not being a USA person, I have no say.

    Her political assassination from the House was also interesting, massive money from obvious sources, so she was out.

    Not so interesting since, but no wonder.

    Che Guava > , June 4, 2017 at 5:26 pm GMT

    @RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.

    How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.

    RobinG > , June 4, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT

    @Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that, she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following, and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.

    Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's "March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not technically slick.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview

    Che Guava > , June 7, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

    @RobinG Thx. Robin. I will watching it later.

    I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long as I get a credit.

    My own, too.

    Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but I don't want to do it that way.

    OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult, same kind of streaming format.

    I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.

    Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior, it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.

    RobinG > , June 8, 2017 at 4:58 am GMT

    @Che Guava Thx. Robin. I will watching it later.

    I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long as I get a credit.

    My own, too.

    Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but I don't want to do it that way.

    OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult, same kind of streaming format.

    I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.

    Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior, it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che, I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying) but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive glare.

    What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military by James Petras

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
    "... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
    "... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
    "... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
    "... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
    "... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
    "... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
    "... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
    "... RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] ..."
    "... Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it. ..."
    "... Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair. ..."
    "... Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well. ..."
    "... Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. ..."
    "... I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel. ..."
    "... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
    "... The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity -- ..."
    "... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
    "... The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time. ..."
    "... Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor. ..."
    "... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
    "... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
    "... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
    "... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
    "... It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ? ..."
    "... It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ? ..."
    "... It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ? ..."
    "... Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ? ..."
    "... Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him. ..."
    "... Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb ..."
    "... I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness. ..."
    Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Introduction

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

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

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

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

    The Coup as 'Process'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ORDER IT NOW

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

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

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

    Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

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

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

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

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

    The Coup: Can it succeed?

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

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

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

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

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

    Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

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

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

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

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

    What a god-awful president.

    An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

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

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

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

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

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

    Happy new year!

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

    Exactly...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Replies: @Seamus Padraig

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

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

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

    MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

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

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

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

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

    This truly is an emergency.

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

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

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

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

    Respectfully,

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

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

    It needs to be published as a feature story.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    This truly is an emergency.

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

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

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

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

    Respectfully,

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

    The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

    It needs to be published as a feature story.

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

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

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

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

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

    What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

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

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

    Mark Green says: • December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

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

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

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

    Or is Trump just being a fox?

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

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

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

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

    And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

    Didn't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Replies:

    @Authenticjazzman

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

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

    @Seamus Padraig

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

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

    @Rurik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @RobinG "

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

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

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

    @Tomster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

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

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

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

    Nothing else they try will fly.

    Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

    @Seamus Padraig
    Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
    It seems you may be on to something:
    RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]

    There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]

    In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

    What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

    mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

    In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

    The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

    If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

    El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
    @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

    It needs to be published as a feature story.

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

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

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

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

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

    What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

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

    Oh my.

    Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
    @Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

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

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

    Or is Trump just being a fox?

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

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

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

    Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

    D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

    Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

    It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

    Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
    @Robert Magill
    Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
    The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

    Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

    I expect Obama loves his kids.

    Great analysis from Petras.

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

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

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

    Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

    animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Robert Magill

    Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
    The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

    Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

    Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL. What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

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

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

    Seamus Padraig says: • Website

    @Svigor

    The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
    On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
    The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
    And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
    The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
    This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

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

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

    Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
    CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

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

    The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

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

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

    Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

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

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

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

    Or is Trump just being a fox?

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

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

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

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

    And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

    Didn't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

    Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

    And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

    It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

    They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

    Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

    Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

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

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

    Nothing else they try will fly.

    Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

    Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

    It seems you may be on to something:

    RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

    What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

    annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

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

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

    Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite. Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

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

    • Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
    The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
    It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

    So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

    Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

    Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

    Nice well written article by James Petras.

    I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

    The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

    Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

    Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

    I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

    Respect All! Bow to None!

    Merry Christmas!

    God Bless!

    [MORE]
    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    "I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

    "Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    [email protected]

    Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

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

    The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

    It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

    So, what to do?

    • Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

    My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
    The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

    The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

    As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

    Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

    My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

    At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

    Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

    If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

    The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

    Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

    Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

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

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

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

    Or is Trump just being a fox?

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

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

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

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

    And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

    Didn't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

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

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

    It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

    Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

    The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

    If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

    Peace - Art

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

    Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

    Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

    A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

    Francis Boyle writes:

    "... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

    Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

    Francis A. Boyle
    Law Building
    504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
    Champaign IL 61820 USA
    217-333-7954 (phone)
    217-244-1478 (fax)

    Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

    That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

    True.

    alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Dear Mr. Petras,

    It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

    Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

    It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

    What for ?

    It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

    Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

    Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

    They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

    Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

    • Replies: @annamaria

    "They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

    The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

    @Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

    RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

    @Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

    The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

    If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

    Peace --- Art

    "If we get past the inauguration ."

    Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

    Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

    A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
    Francis Boyle writes:
    " I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

    Francis A. Boyle
    Law Building
    504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
    Champaign IL 61820 USA
    217-333-7954 (phone)
    217-244-1478 (fax)

    • Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

    This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

    The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

    Really - how pissed off can they be?

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

    map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

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

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

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

    Or is Trump just being a fox?

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

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

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

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

    And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

    Didn't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

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

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

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

    Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

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

    • Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

    As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

    That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

    Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

    I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
    Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

    Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

    Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

    Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

    You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

    There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

    joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

    @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

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

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

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

    Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

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

    masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

    As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

    That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

    Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

    I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
    Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

    Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

    It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

    The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

    I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

    Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

    Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

    I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

    annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

    @Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

    You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

    There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

    The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
    "The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
    Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

    • Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

    Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

    Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

    A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
    Francis Boyle writes:
    "... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

    Francis A. Boyle
    Law Building
    504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
    Champaign IL 61820 USA
    217-333-7954 (phone)
    217-244-1478 (fax)

    Hi RobinG,

    This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

    The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

    Really – how pissed off can they be?

    Peace - Art

    p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

    • Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

    I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

    What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

    Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

    Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

    Looks like I spoke too soon:

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

    The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

    Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

    RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

    @Art Hi RobinG,

    This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

    The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

    Really - how pissed off can they be?

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

    Hi Art,

    I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

    What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

    Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

    • Replies: @Art
    What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
    RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
    anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

    https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

    This is a very underwhelming document.

    I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

    No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

    An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

    Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

    From WikiLeaks:

    "From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

    Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

    The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

    Note the Disclaimer:

    DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
    His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


    Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

    @annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

    "The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

    Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

    Great observations. Thanks.

    map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

    @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

    As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

    That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

    Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

    I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
    Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

    Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

    Joe Webb

    The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

    It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

    The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

    I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

    • Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
    Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

    Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

    As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

    (We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

    How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

    The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

    As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

    Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

    The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
    democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

    For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
    Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

    The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

    All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

    finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

    Joe Webb

    Seamus Padraig says: • December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

    @anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

    This is a very underwhelming document.

    I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

    No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

    An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

    Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

    From WikiLeaks:

    "From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

    Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

    The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

    Note the Disclaimer:

    DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

    An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

    His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

    • Replies: @geokat62
    His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
    "Was" is the operative word:

    Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

    https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

    Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

    Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

    He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

    .I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

    Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

    In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

    Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

    So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

    And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
    .

    But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

    Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

    The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

    A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

    geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
    An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
    His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

    His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

    "Was" is the operative word:

    Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

    https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/

    RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

    @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

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

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

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

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

    The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

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

    "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

    Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

    RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

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

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

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

    Or is Trump just being a fox?

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

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

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

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

    And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

    Didn't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

    @RobinG Hi Art,

    I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

    What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

    Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

    What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

    RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

    Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

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

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

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

    Or is Trump just being a fox?

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

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

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

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

    And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

    Didn't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

    Dear Mr. Petras,

    It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

    It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ?

    It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

    Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

    What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

    Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

    @map

    The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

    It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

    The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

    I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

    "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

    alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

    @Seamus Padraig

    An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
    His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

    Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

    Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

    Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

    He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

    .I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

    Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

    In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

    Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

    So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

    And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy" .

    But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

    joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

    @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

    It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

    The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

    I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

    good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
    Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

    Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

    As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

    (We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

    How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

    The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

    As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

    Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

    The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
    democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

    For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

    The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

    All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

    finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
    Joe Webb

    Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

    January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

    lavoisier says: • December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

    @joe webb

    Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

    I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

    [Jul 25, 2017] Murder, Spies And Weapons - Three Fascinating 'Deep State' Stories

    Notable quotes:
    "... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
    "... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
    "... Document hack could imperil subs in Oz, India, other countries ..."
    "... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump. ..."
    "... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
    Jul 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for terrorists - Trud

    Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo

    With lots of details from obtained emails.

    Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries.

    ---

    With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of the issue deserves more scrutiny:

    McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

    A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

    ---

    Another Scorpene Submarine Scandal - Asia Sentinel (a bit older but it was new to me)

    Document hack could imperil subs in Oz, India, other countries

    Posted by b on July 21, 2017 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    The first story is a muti-billion dollar illegal business network that potentially encompasses not only the CIA, but also several governments, the Clinton Foundation, David Patreus, investors (many of whom hold government positions) and God knows what else. It's possibly the greatest scam the world has ever seen.

    Posted by: Musburger | Jul 21, 2017 12:41:30 PM | 1

    The first story is a muti-billion dollar illegal business network that potentially encompasses not only the CIA, but also several governments, the Clinton Foundation, David Patreus, investors (many of whom hold government positions) and God knows what else. It's possibly the greatest scam the world has ever seen.

    Posted by: Musburger | Jul 21, 2017 12:41:30 PM | 1 /div

    /div
    /div
    ProPeace | Jul 21, 2017 12:48:44 PM | 3
    It would be nice to have a comprehensive list of sponsors of those fake lucrative speeches such front persons and puppets as Clintons, Saakashvili, Kwaśniewski, ... have been giving.

    The Business Round Tables that Quigley and Sutton wrote about that live off wars and misery.

    Petri Krohn | Jul 21, 2017 12:55:55 PM | 4
    There is an amazing amount of detailed information from reliable sources on the U.S. sponsored, Saudi paid arms deliveries to terrorist in Syria, originating from the eastern parts of the European Union. I have collected some of the best sources here:

    US covert war on Syria -> Weapon deliveries

    likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 12:56:46 PM | 5
    McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier

    The third time is the Charm.

    I am reminded

    McCain can do no wrong:

    His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy);
    The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong)
    The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring the words of Reagan)

    McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due illness – the most aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?

    james | Jul 21, 2017 12:58:42 PM | 6
    thanks b.. the first part of your post reaffirms my comment in the previous thread about the usa, saudi arabia/gccs and israel being the terrorists that the world would be a lot better place without... "the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies.."
    terry | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:09 PM | 7
    Here is a link to The Dilyana Files – 1403 Email Attachments Posted https://www.truthleaks.org/news/343-the-dilyana-files-1403-email-attachments-posted
    james | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:13 PM | 8
    @5 likklemore ... in an exceptional country, there is no accountability... according to obama, you have to move on and not dwell on the past, lol...
    ben | Jul 21, 2017 1:07:44 PM | 9
    Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy, is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses we're all just treading water here.
    WorldBLee | Jul 21, 2017 1:11:43 PM | 10
    @2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
    nonsense factory | Jul 21, 2017 1:54:32 PM | 11
    BBC News has a great little expose on tracking ISIS weapons captured in Mosul to their sources in Eastern Europe:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8bwCj3lfsg
    "The team has carried out painstaking research cataloging serial numbers and tracing the routes. They found crates of ammunition and rockets manufactured in factories in eastern Europe. These were bought by the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia."
    Whether or not the arming and financing of ISIS groups was "accidental" or "deliberate" remains something of an open question; most likely the actual US policy from c.2011-2012 onwards was to give support to anyone trying to overthrow Assad's government regardless of affiliation. The architects of this plan? Clinton & McCain seem to be right at the center of it, with plenty of neocon/neolib supporters in Congress & the State Department/CIA/Pentagon (Nuland/Morrell/Carter etc.)
    Oui | Jul 21, 2017 2:29:43 PM | 12
    Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump.
    McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

    A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

    • there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier.
    • there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
    • the issue is now in front of a British court.

    Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 21, 2017 3:02:30 PM | 13
    Thanks, b. Love the lede...
    350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud

    What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".

    I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said (of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."

    This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over. Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.

    psychohistorian | Jul 21, 2017 3:12:19 PM | 14
    Thanks again for the excellent journalism b even though it reads like the trash on the rags in the grocery stores they make you look at while you check out.

    I just hold out hope that the great unraveling continues and quickens its pace.

    Curtis | Jul 21, 2017 3:32:48 PM | 15
    Criminal activity under diplomatic cover should be prosecuted. They can pretend they didn't find out until it was too late. Or they can claim that they were letting it happen in order to track the players. Those excuses have been used for all kinds of cover for nefarious activites like Pakistan's AQ Khan NukeMart to distribute nuclear technology and materials. (See Deception and United States and the Islamc Bomb books) And there's Fast & Furious. In the end the cover comes from the political top of the trash heap.

    The Dem/anti-Trump attempts to get dirt on Trump via Russians doesn't get play in the MSM. Nor does the content of the emails. They call the tune and the media plays on.

    Curtis | Jul 21, 2017 3:38:37 PM | 16
    nonsense factory 11
    Thnx for the vid link. That evidence won't get to US MSM either. It makes the case for Tulsi Gabbard's efforts.
    kpax | Jul 21, 2017 3:46:26 PM | 17
    @likklemore #5
    ... just a malignant 'moderate' tumour to a moderately aggressive cerebral model.
    likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 4:52:05 PM | 18
    @james 8
    [Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed the dossier to Comey."

    NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"

    Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself

    New York Post
    http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/john-mccain-i-gave-russia-blackmail-dossier-on-trump-to-fbi/

    Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

    Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case to answer.


    @kpax 17

    Did I mis-read? McCain's cerebral?

    Piotr Berman | Jul 21, 2017 5:46:21 PM | 19
    The link suggests that the subs involved in the scandal are perhaps OK, and no hack compromised their worthiness in a possible military conflict. Neither there were any fatal accidents. The only losses in manpower (but quite a few) are among people engaged in the financial transactions that delivered them to various fleets.

    Although there are possible danger to security, because bribery is used to blackmail involved in recruitment of spies.

    Fidelios Automata | Jul 21, 2017 6:03:00 PM | 20
    I hope the conspiracy theories are wrong, and that McInsane will soon suffer a well-deserved painful death.
    BTW, I'm a long-time Arizonan, and I'm proud to say I've never voted for this traitor and have also signed the recall petitions against him.
    I apologize for never contributing anything substantial but just emanating verbal support.
    I hope this site has some mirrored archives. This is in its entirety a work of contemporary history (sorry my english's not good enough... mirror this site and give it some dumb ancestor of ours to read in 20, 50, 100 years, y'know).
    I'm a broke lowlife but next time around I'll send some money.

    Posted by: radiator | Jul 21, 2017 6:16:53 PM | 21

    I apologize for never contributing anything substantial but just emanating verbal support.
    I hope this site has some mirrored archives. This is in its entirety a work of contemporary history (sorry my english's not good enough... mirror this site and give it some dumb ancestor of ours to read in 20, 50, 100 years, y'know).
    I'm a broke lowlife but next time around I'll send some money.

    Posted by: radiator | Jul 21, 2017 6:16:53 PM | 21 /div

    radiator | Jul 21, 2017 6:19:21 PM | 22
    damn I regret every cent I've spent on mainstream newspapers, although the last time I've done so has been years ago and maybe back then, they weren't so bad, but then again, they probably were and I just didn't notice.
    Anonymous | Jul 21, 2017 7:01:32 PM | 23
    The dog that didn't bark in the arms shipment story is the absense of Qatar in the list of recipient countries. It also seems that, whilst most (80%) were shipped through SA/UAE, more arms were shipped through Jordan (11%) than through Turkey (7%).

    Bulgaria may also have been the location of military level training sites for foreigners. An intriguing report from June 2015 noted that an American was killed along with 2 foreigners (German and Canadian) in a grenade launcher accident of a PMC training center at Anevo, Bulgaria. The site was run by an company Algans (or Alguns).

    http://sofiaglobe.com/2015/06/06/american-dies-four-injured-in-blast-at-bulgarias-vmz-sopot-ordnance-plant/

    There are links to the infamous US military $500 million training program in which an unknown number of 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' were trained and all but 5 of them 'defected' to al Qaeda.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/mobbed-up-arms-dealer-in-american-anti-isis-effort-linked-to


    Anonymous | Jul 21, 2017 7:14:05 PM | 24
    "This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more" Hoarsewhisperer @13

    The docs indicate the Balkans arm supply route took off in 2012. It will have brought in many billions of USD to the relatively poor east European countries. Before the Gulenist(?) shoot down of the Russian Su-24, Russia had been trying to get Turkey and Bulgaria interested in South Stream. I suspect Russia did indeed know the details of the arms shipment, and certainly knew about Turkey's cut of the ISIS oil sales. I suspect this deal may have been an attempt to wean the two off the terrorism funding spigot. This failed as the Bulgarian government is totally owned by the US. Erdogan's ego was manipulated by his Zionist handlers and eventually his stalling killed interest at theat time. The Russians would know this background too, but the deal had to be tried. If it had worked, then the Bulgarian arms train would possibly have been stopped and the Turkish border closed several years ago. This would have greatly cramped the capabilities of ISIS, simplifying the task of eliminating them. I suspect the Russians also knew it wouldn't pan out but it was certainly worth a shot whilst they was busily obtaining intelligence on the terrorists, and secretly negotiating the logistics, overflight access etc for what was to become its base at Hymeim.

    somebody | Jul 21, 2017 7:15:18 PM | 25
    23 also

    Russia Hopes to Sign Agreement on Arms Re-Export From Bulgaria

    The statement was followed by a publication of the Bulgarian Trud newspaper that mentioned the Arcus arms company as the producer of some arms produced in Bulgaria under Russian licenses, which were found by journalists in eastern Aleppo.
    karlof1 | Jul 21, 2017 7:40:44 PM | 26
    Somewhat OT, but since many think Putin is part of Russia's Deep State, then perhaps we should look in on how he interacts with kids--yes, children. Along with his annual Direct Line Q&A where he takes questions from all over Russia and from around the world, he also has an annual meet with children at one of the many special centers Russia has dedicated to them in education, sport, music, and art, where he takes their questions, and we often learn new things about the rather remarkable Russian President. This year, he's at the Sirius Educational Centre for Talented Children in Sochi. It's quite an interesting conversation and provides some comic relief. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55114
    nobody | Jul 21, 2017 7:49:29 PM | 27
    BBC News has a great little expose

    Posted by: nonsense factory | Jul 21, 2017 1:54:32 PM | 11

    Tillerson. Exxon. Petrodollar. Rockefellers.

    BBC. MI6. BIS. Rothschilds.

    https://youtu.be/Hgq4w4dqKsU

    That's a good question.

    nobody | Jul 21, 2017 8:07:41 PM | 28
    Master: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/david-rockefeller.jpg

    Blaster: https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingdead/images/0/0c/Armedforces.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131116201742

    Barter-Town: http://images.legalweek.com/images/IMG/277/144277/city-of-london-gherkin-finance.jpg

    Mad-Max:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Vladimir_Putin_in_KGB_uniform.jpg/170px-Vladimir_Putin_in_KGB_uniform.jpg

    http://madmaxmovies.com/mad-max/mad-max-cars/max-yellow-xb-interceptor-sedan/max-leaps-out-of-yellow-xb.jpg

    fast freddy | Jul 21, 2017 8:20:34 PM | 29
    Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody that can damage him.
    nobody | Jul 21, 2017 8:24:37 PM | 30
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

    I always wondered which of USA's "allies" could have been responsible for this nasty business. The French were rather vocal in their expression of "concern" regarding the "hyperpower" in 1999, but given the necessary degree of inside information -- war games on 9/11 -- it really had to be one of the "allies" that are joined at the hip in the pentagram.

    That is the Brits and the Zionazi entity. So that's the Rotten children of Satan, the "Red" R.

    Finally it all makes sense.

    nobody | Jul 21, 2017 8:34:56 PM | 31
    Sure, it's tempting to think this:

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130617135443-hassan-rowhani-0617-horizontal-gallery.jpg

    https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/ru.starwars/images/6/6e/Wicket_rotj.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080114192500

    But we do know that Islamic Republic is a creature of the British. (Longstanding history between the worldly priests of Iran and the defunct British Empire. Read up.)

    ben | Jul 21, 2017 8:49:59 PM | 32
    karlof1 @ 26: Thanks for the link. Can you picture Trump fielding questions like Putin does on a regular basis? I can't.

    The more I listen to Putin, the more I believe he has REAL character, something most of our politicians DON'T have...

    virgile | Jul 21, 2017 10:15:43 PM | 33
    No one will regret McCain... The next in line should be Erdogan...
    nobody | Jul 21, 2017 10:26:39 PM | 34
    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480 ">https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480">https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FEHE4E_I5FM/hqdefault.jpg

    Trully, who but the ignorant make war against ALLAH?

    karlof1 | Jul 22, 2017 1:01:01 AM | 35
    ben @31--

    Putin casts a shadow over many men, often without really trying; rare, but not unique. Some are described as Teflon, implying they're slippery, nothing sticks, bullets glance-off. Contrastingly, Putin seems to absorb everything and feeds on it, making him stronger and resilient simultaneously, like the judo master he is. It's easy to understand why Russians have the high degree of confidence they share in Putin, something I think even the opposition would concede.

    ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 1:06:13 AM | 36
    They throw a hissy fit Neocon madness: We can't have peace in Syria, that would be giving in to Russia!

    This is huge. An absolute outrage. The first real Trump concession to Putin that undermines U.S. security directly. https://t.co/h9WR4brHHK -- Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) July 19, 2017

    Peter AU | Jul 22, 2017 1:54:13 AM | 37
    karlof1, Ben

    A short video of Putin I run onto when researching him and current Russia some time ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ordGkDQos
    Touches the kid on the shoulder, more like a father than an elite, and stands beside him for the national anthem. Perhaps I read it the wrong way, but gives some insight into Putin.

    Peter AU | Jul 22, 2017 2:15:52 AM | 38
    Cancer vs McCain's brain? Don't like the cancers chances. It is trying to feed on a very toxic substance. With luck, it will be a drawn out battle with cancer winning.
    Mattose | Jul 22, 2017 4:32:17 AM | 39
    I urge you all to follow this man at youtube.
    He and the viewers together show daily what a rotten gang of sociopates are worldwide at work.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/georgwebb/videos

    Giap | Jul 22, 2017 4:32:18 AM | 40
    Most suprised McCains brain has a tumour - I thought it went missing a number of decades ago.
    V. Arnold | Jul 22, 2017 5:07:37 AM | 41
    karlof1 | Jul 22, 2017 1:01:01 AM | 34

    Couldn't agree more; Putin's a man of genuine character.
    Oh, so lacking in the west.
    The Usian's have been relegated to prisoner's of war.

    V. Arnold | Jul 22, 2017 5:23:22 AM | 42
    Peter AU | Jul 22, 2017 1:54:13 AM | 36

    In one question the president vid, a student asked the reason Putin didn't use an umbrella in an outside ceremony, during a pouring down rain; he replied; "I'm not made of sugar, I won't melt."
    Here;
    http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/07/putin-im-not-made-of-sugar-video.html

    طراحی سایت | Jul 22, 2017 5:42:50 AM | 43
    nice article, thank you for sharing
    طراحی وب سایت | Jul 22, 2017 5:43:49 AM | 44
    :)) :)
    like
    Oui | Jul 22, 2017 5:57:32 AM | 45
    @ #42 and #43

    The hosting server for nopardazco.com is located in Iran.
    Created March 30, 2017, registrant name Hamid Dastani in Tehran.
    Seems to be a commercial troll.

    Yeah, Right | Jul 22, 2017 6:40:44 AM | 46
    @2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding McCain's mental state.

    So, yeah, brain tumour.

    MadMax2 | Jul 22, 2017 6:54:34 AM | 47
    @34, 36, 40
    Re: Putin, I've seen plenty of Putin footage, and never once seen him dodge or deflect a question - it's obvious he has a firm mental grasp on almost all issues from technology, to war, to social issues, to the political mechanics of foreign states...just an incredibly broad spectrum of understanding, always displaying respect to history. What's not to admire?? The guy is more statesman than politician, hence his domestic popularity.

    All that is out there, known to the west...ready to be discovered by all who are curious enough. Alas, the acute attention deficit issues of the common westerner coupled with the dumbing down of successive generations and the destruction of critical thought make Putin somehow easy propaganda fodder.

    I have to come to MofA for a does of sanity, because to converse with my fellow westerners on a like subject in my surrounding environment is... fucking retarded.

    V. Arnold | Jul 22, 2017 7:34:38 AM | 48
    MadMax2 | Jul 22, 2017 6:54:34 AM | 46
    I have to come to MofA for a does of sanity, because to converse with my fellow westerners on a like subject in my surrounding environment is... fucking retarded.

    Mercy me, ain't it so?
    Even over at Ian's (Welsh), he has to start every post about Russia's Putin with how evil he is; I've called him out on that crap; to no avail.
    But, I do think the world is waking up to the vile Usaian policies across the planet. One can only hope, yes?
    Just to be clear; I have no illusions regarding Pres. Putin; however; his reality based leadership is a wake up call to the planet.
    It's also infinitely clear, Russia is NOT the aggresor in our present reality; but rather it's the U.S.A.!
    Putin's cool hand Luke, is probably the only reason the nukes are not flying...
    Yet...

    nobody | Jul 22, 2017 10:21:15 AM | 49
    Posted by: Oui | Jul 22, 2017 5:57:32 AM | 44

    A not so subtle ping from the monitors of this site in the land of the collectively "minor and orphan" Muslims, with expectation of a click on their link to determine IP of moi. (خر خودتی)

    nobody 28
    My image of Master-Blaster from Beyond Thunderdome has Israel in the Master position riding the US as Blaster. (sometimes he lets others ride, too)

    Posted by: Curtis | Jul 22, 2017 11:59:46 AM | 50

    nobody 28
    My image of Master-Blaster from Beyond Thunderdome has Israel in the Master position riding the US as Blaster. (sometimes he lets others ride, too)

    Posted by: Curtis | Jul 22, 2017 11:59:46 AM | 50 /div

    nobody | Jul 22, 2017 12:27:00 PM | 51
    Posted by: Curtis | Jul 22, 2017 11:59:46 AM | 49

    The entity began and remains a Rothschild project. They (R) are still upset about how the Yank franchise scooped up their assets after WWII. Now that oceans no longer protect America from adversaries they have their window of opportunity to take back control of the global olive oil business.

    AIPAC's control over US is a fairly recent phenomena and the result, as we can all see, is the patently self-destructive path that they set the Superpower on in the past 20 years. This was obvious even in 2002 that the actual goal was to take US off the pedestal and cut it down to size. When the dust settles, US (well the poor under educated and over medicated and propagandized Americans) will be holding a 20, 30?, Trillion dollar DEBT to the blood suckers that run "global finance". And what we see now is that apparently (rather late in the game I am afraid) some subset of the "elite" elements in Yankistan -- the OIL money families -- have finally figured out just what sort of a mess they have gotten themselves into, having trusted their dual-citizen ashke-Nazi "sages". That is why we see all these entirely bizzare political fights break out between nominal allies, such as EU and US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, etc.

    This is the reason. The rest is ladida to keep us plebes entertained.

    This is my opinion.

    Peter AU. | Jul 22, 2017 2:47:46 PM | 52
    I heard the The hosting server for nopardazco.com is located in Iran.
    Registrant name Hamid Dastani in Tehran.
    Seems to be a commercial troll.
    ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 3:21:06 PM | 53
    "They (R) are still upset about how the Yank franchise scooped up their assets after WWII."

    Not true. The US was promoted after WW2 to the role of the clout, or the "muscle man" of the global evil cabal of the Brutish Empire run by City of London Crown Corporation, whereas the British Empire went off the radars under the guise of the "Commonwealth". It's just a matter of efficiency of management of occupied territories, does not irritate or provoke the local tribes in Europe, US, Canada, Australia, NZ... "Happy slaves" believing they are free...

    This is somewhat touched upon in the marvelous Ken Loach movie "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" I mentioned before - one sober character reminds others that withdrawing British troops ends official brutal occupation, but negotiated deal puts Ireland into tight economical and political dependence on the Crown.

    Besides how do you fight enemy that "does not exist" ? ;-)

    As I said times before:

    "The greatest trick The British Empire ever pulled was convincing the world it ceased to exist. That's been its power"

    Promoting the US as the official "global empire" and going underground, in the shadows, were one of the main goals of the AngloZio cabal in their plans to start WW2. Other being establishing the state of Israel in Palestine with the help of Nazi terror, and destroying German ambitions to challenge UK's global hegemony by pushing it into the Nazi crazed "bubble", aka "pump and dump", or "boom and bust" scheme. Hitler acted in the best interests of the British imperial elite (fuck the commoners, they never really mattered). He would've never attacked Poland without being sure that the British would give him free hand to do it. He sought alliance with the British - Hitler writes about in "Mein Kampf", you can check it by yourself. After baiting Germans into Hitler's trap, the City of London performed a "switch", (arrested Rudolf Hess who landed in Britain for further instructions) and confronted Germany allied with the US and Russia to achieve what one of the first of British NATO chiefs (Hastings Ismay) admitted:

    "To keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down."

    That plan has been hugely successful until 2012 when Obama showed, by refusing to forfeit the run for the 2nd term, which camp he's been in.

    "The pump and dump" scheme allowed amazing acceleration of the technological progress on the world wide scale, with enormous resources assigned for some crucial projects, impossible under peaceful circumstances. Of course later "scooped" by the AngloZios:

    Theft of German Scientific Research Fueled Post-War Technology Boom

    By Daniel W. Michaels:


    "TO THE VICTORS BELONG THE SPOILS" is an American saying (attributed to Andrew Jackson) and, regrettably, an occasional American practice as it was in the case of "the Great Patent Heist of 1946." It was made official policy in World War II by President Harry Truman's Executive Order 9604, also known as the "License to Steal," which permitted agents of the U.S. government to execute the greatest robbery in world history: the theft of German intellectual (scientific) property. What technology the Americans and Soviets stole has, in fact, fueled some of the greatest scientific advances of the modern era.
    Peter AU | Jul 22, 2017 3:30:43 PM | 54
    Post 51 is not mine.
    nobody | Jul 22, 2017 4:24:12 PM | 55
    Not true. The US was promoted after WW2 to the role of the clout, or the "muscle man" of the global evil cabal of the Brutish Empire run by City of London Crown Corporation, whereas the British Empire went off the radars under the guise of the "Commonwealth".

    Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 3:21:06 PM | 52

    "On 15 August 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the dollar a fiat currency.[3] This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, created the situation in which the US dollar became a reserve currency used by many states. At the same time, many fixed currencies (such as the pound sterling, for example) also became free-floating."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

    Richard Nixon's genius (along with his _Rockefeller_ advisor, Henry Kissinger) devisied the three pronged platform for US supramacy in the early 70s.

    The termination of Bretton Woods by United States, in conjunction with the creation of the Petrodollar mechanism, and the integration of Communist China into the West's establishment, was a master stroke of genius by Nixon that rendered null and void the historic blunder of that fool Wilson that made Americans debt slaves to the Barter Town of London.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret

    The result was that United States of America was free to accumulate effectively free debt instruments backed by US Navy and Oil. And there was nothing the Brits could do about it.

    Of course the Brits had already shown themselves ready to help the Soviets in confict with Uncle Sam, as perfectly illustrated in the episode of England giving Soviet Union a working RollsRoyce jet engine. A piece of technology the Russians could not master.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-17

    So having taken care of the monatary and enegry aspects, Nixon faced the possibility of future monkey wrenches thrown in America's imperial ambitions by the Brits via the Soviet Union.

    So he turned to China, made kissy face with the Chairman, and set into motion the historic agreement to realign CCP with United States as a bulwark against the Soviets. That was brilliant.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Nixon_visit_to_China

    He also engineered the exit of the British Navy from the Persian Gulf and designated the Shah of Iran as the new "policeman of the Persian Gulf".

    https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/558294/CIRSOccasionalPaper4JamesOnley2009.pdf

    That is why poor "tricky dick" became a target of a coup by the British aligned fraternal "agency" of skull and bones and misguided elements of Naval Intelligence.

    --

    Today, the AIPAC directed United States has systematically pursued a course to dismantle the historic strategic achievements of Richard Nixon.

    Petrodollar is about to become history (and thus the debt becomes a real generational liability) and CCP has been thoroughly provoked and has been driven into the arms of their historic adversary Russia.

    And in a way that no doubt is very pleasing to the Barter Town monsters, this time it will be the other players across the pond that will "scoop" and take over the global mechanisms (IMF, WorldBank, UN) that US had created to manage its empire.

    ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 5:58:27 PM | 56
    All what you wrote about has been devised for the US by the masters in City of London, who control e.g. the FED, thus the Petrodollar (Saudi Barbaria was set up with the British intelligence help).

    You can trace all leaders of the world terrorism to London, been there at least for soe period of their terrorist quest (instructions, training, refuge).

    I highly recommend reading Dean Henderson on the topic.

    The US is known for supporting the Soviet Union, GE built power plants and lines (Lenin: "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country"), Ford car factories.

    I also recommend reading Anthony Sutton's WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION to see how the masters of puppets played both sides.

    Ideologies like Communism, Nazism, Zionism, and also religions as well as world conflicts, societal rich vs poor, queer vs hetero, conservative vs liberal, traditional vs progressive, ) and political (2 party monopoly basically in all British colonies - US, Eastern Europe, ..., freemasonic black-white checkered motive comes to mind) division lines (implementing old imperial "divide et impera" stratgy) are devised just as means to achieve far reaching goal of total global control by the same degenerate "elite".

    BTW CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran at the British request, and the butcher of Iraq gen. Schwartzkopf was knighted for a reason... (Interesting to see who else received order of the British Empire...) Recent news confirm that was actually Tony Bliar pushing Bush for the Iraq war, not the other way round...

    Slightly different take 3 Corporations Run the World: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City

    It's worth noting that Switzerland is a "very special place" too...

    nobody | Jul 22, 2017 6:44:08 PM | 57
    Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 5:58:27 PM | 55

    You are being obtuse.

    Poor Lawrence got buggered by a Turk in service of King and country to setup the tribal leaders from Najd as kings in Arabia and then it was FDR who hosted Abdul Aziz ibn Saud on US Navy ships floating on the "Great Bitter Lake" (get it?):

    http://www.ouramazingworld.org/uploads/4/3/8/6/43860587/vol38_issue2_2005.pdf

    "You can trace all leaders of the world terrorism to London, been there at least for soe period of their terrorist quest (instructions, training, refuge)."

    That's their specialty. How does that contradict the narrative that Richard Nixon as servent of Rockefellers engineered the take over of Barter Town from below using energy as weapon to let the financiers know who is the New Boss?

    "BTW CIA overthrew Mossadegh in Iran at the British request"

    CIA did not overthrow Dr. Mossadegh. CIA participated in the counter coup against him. Do you recognize how condescending it is to assert that some wasp flunky with a bag full of dollars can come and overthrow a leader that according to his own "democratic" referandum had obtained "99%" of the Iranians' vote?

    Dr. Mossadegh himself, due to his erratic behaviour, assumption of dictatorial power, violation of Iran's constitution, and the growing fear of the clerics of a Tudeh take over, managed to alienate a large segment of his own constituency, and the Americans decided to take the British advice and support those factions that were against him. And the result for Britain was that US managed to peel Iran from the British orbit. And yes, the Shah was grateful to the Americans. What did you expect the young king to do? Ask Soviets to help?

    Until the day that you have actually studied Iran's history during 1945-1952, kindly resist the urge to throw around the "1953" propaganda.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946

    Pft | Jul 22, 2017 7:12:38 PM | 58
    You got it ProPeace. It actually goes further back to Cecil Rhodes plan to recover America, the establishment of political Zionism in 1897 and its offspring Bolshevism 20 years later getting America to develop a taste for imperialism with the Spanish American War that was promoted by Hearst, then thevassassination of McKinley to get its puppet Teddy in office, getting the US to adopt the BOE model with the Fed Reserve effectively allowing the money masters in London to control money creation and finance future wars, and of course the Balfour Declaration (an agreement reached long before it was declared) which allowed the pro-German faction on Wall Street to support the war against Germany and get the US in the war, and of course the income tax to insure the Fed would be able to collect on the debt interest and then following WWII the CFR which was a creation of Rhodes Round Table to recruit members to execute the Empire Building.

    Today of course there are no borders for the wanna be global ruling masters. London, the City, Wall Street, DC , Israel are all one and the same as are the BOE/Fed through BIS, the various intelligence agencies and military through NATO.

    The US top Presidents, Generals and Fed Reserve Chairmen get knighted by the Queen. The US is a defacto commonwealth nation and perhaps Israels colony

    One may consider the possibility that this was the plan all along and led the Founding Fathers, a number of which were Masons and perhaps even Illuminati broke from England without much resistance from the King. After all, why not allow them to break free to eliminate the financial burden and recover them when they become profitable. They still needed to trade with them after all and they had their agents inside the US which they could control. When the US strayed a bit and refused to extend the ban charters they invaded as in 1812, or resorted to asassination (Attempt on Jackson) , started a Civil War and then knocked off Lincoln for printing Greenbacks. But it wasnt until the end of the 19th century with oil replacing coal that America and the Middle East were deemed essential in order to maintain and build their Empire because Britain had none of that Black Gold and was running short of the yellow Gold, and the US had plenty of both and the ME plenty of the former

    psychohistorian | Jul 22, 2017 7:35:30 PM | 59
    @ Pft, Propeace and nobody that are off topic but right on target for sharing their scenarios about how the elite have controlled our world for centuries.

    Thanks!

    It is good to read others confirmation of my understanding about the sick tenets of our form of social organization.....private money and ongoing private ownership of property maintained by unfettered inheritance......It is not people that need to be eliminated but the tools that they use to exert power and control over the rest of us.

    ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 8:36:44 PM | 60
    @Pft | Jul 22, 2017 7:12:38 Right on, could not say it better myself.

    Promoting the US colony to world imperial status after WW2 was a natural step in maintaining global hegemony. Also the term "thalassocracy" comes to mind - you can observe that the Thalassocracy, I still believe with the main HQ in City of London, has been maintaining control of the global waterway choke points and thus control on global trade, through supervising "percolating violence" status in those areas.

    And as I said before - with exposing the US to blowbacks, anti-imperial activities, rage of the oppressed peoples, London could stay in the shadows (much more comfortable situation), working tirelessly behind the curtains to expand its empire. Of course organizing false flags like in 2007, or recently in the last couple of years, is necessary to keep the British population in check, scared, easier to control, confused, distracted from the real perps and to implement gradually totalitarian measures.

    Although I see some signals from the UK that some fractures are starting to appear and some factions of the establishment begin to align themselves with the future winners.

    The same with Israel...

    I believe there is gonna be some huge global events at the end of Summer that will reshape the geopolitical scene dramatically. The UK (the Russians have been testing their response times quite regularly) and Israel seem to be easier to contain (the rest of the ME seems to be in check now), but with the US and its massive network of sayanim, saboteurs, corrupted officials, "manchurian candidates", secret societies, lodges, posh ranches (where truly unspeakable things happen), Israeli trained law enforcement, and with absolutely stupid large parts of the population, it will require some drastic measures.

    Let's hope the "soft landing" of the US from its imperial status in the next couple of months will be peaceful...

    [Apologies for many typos in my above posts]

    ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 8:43:58 PM | 61
    @nobody | Jul 22, 2017 6:44:08 I beg to differ Nazis, Assassins & Operation Ajax

    ...Prior to WWII British Petroleum dominated the Iranian oil patch. Following the war Britain dumped its puppet Shah in favor of his yet more pliable son Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose Nazi sympathies were less overt. By 1943 the US had established a military command in Iran and signed the Tehran Agreement, cutting the US half of the Four Horsemen a generous slice of the Iranian oil pie.

    Iran was coveted for its expansive reserves of crude and remains the most geopolitically strategic Middle Eastern nation, bordering both the unprecedented Persian Gulf oilfields to the south and the vast, largely untapped Caspian Sea crude reserves to the north.

    After World War II the Iranian people became increasingly hostile towards Big Oil and their puppet Shah. Anger was especially prevalent among oilfield workers of the Khuzistan region who formed the main constituency of the Tudeh (Masses) Party. In 1951 Tudeh formed a coalition with the National Front Party and elected Mohammed Mossadegh Prime Minister of Iran. Mossadegh, who first campaigned against Soviet occupation of northern Iran, became a vocal critic of Four Horsemen control over Iranian oil. He soon announced plans to nationalize BP interests in Iran. BP responded by organizing an international boycott of Iranian crude and called on two long-time associates for more drastic measures.

    US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, both worked for the Washington law firm Sullivan & Cromwell before joining the State Department. The firm represented BP in the US. It had also served as legal counsel to J. Henry Schroeder Bank, the Warburg family-controlled Hamburg bank that financed Adolph Hitler's rise to power in Nazi Germany. Allen Dulles had been a lawyer for Nazi combine I. G. Farben and headed the CIA-predecessor Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during WWII. The Dulles brothers are cousins of the Rockefellers.

    After WWII, Allen Dulles was OSS Station Chief in Berne, Switzerland, where he helped Swiss Nazi Francois Genoud transfer Hitler and Goebel trusts into Swiss bank accounts. In 1952 Dulles founded Banque Commerciale Arabe in Lausanne, Switzerland. The bank represented a pact between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood-Benoist-Mechin, which is comprised of Saudi royal family members. Dulles was cutting a deal with Islamic fundamentalists.

    Part of this Faustian bargain may have involved the House of Saud chieftains providing information to US intelligence on how to create mind-controlled assassins. The Muslim Brotherhood claims to have first perfected this technique during the 11th century Crusades when it launched a brutal parallel secret society known as the Assassins, who employed mind-controlled "lone gunmen" to carry out political assassinations of Muslim Saracen nationalists. The Assassins worked in concert with Knights Templar Christian invaders in their attacks on progressive Arabs, but were repelled...

    After failed negotiation attempts in Tehran with the populist Mossadegh led by Averell Harriman and Vernon Walters, the Dulles Brothers took charge of a joint CIA/MI6 smear campaign painting the Iranian leader in the most brilliant colors of Red. When this anticommunist rhetoric failed to convince the Iranian people to turn on their popular leader, a military expedition was organized.

    Financing for the CIA coup, code named Operation Ajax, came from Deak & Company, founded by OSS operative Nicholas Deak. The company was the largest currency and gold bullion trader in the US after WWII and financed CIA adventures in Vietnam and the Belgian Congo through their Hong Kong gold monopoly.

    Operation Ajax was led by H. Norman Schwartzkopf, father of the Gulf War General of same name, and Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt. A palace coup led by Shah loyalist General Fazlollah Zahedi was organized in 1954. Mossadegh was deposed and the Shah flew into Tehran from exile in Rome seated next to Allen Dulles. The Four Horsemen had their puppet back in the National Palace. Kermit Roosevelt stayed in Tehran, his CIA Deputy Director of Plans income soon augmented by a new job as salesman of military aircraft for Northrop Corporation...

    I also recommend reading John Perkins, aka "Economic Hitman", especially wrt to your claims

    "Do you recognize how condescending it is to assert that some wasp flunky with a bag full of dollars can come and overthrow a leader..."

    nobody | Jul 22, 2017 11:08:41 PM | 62
    Following the war Britain dumped its puppet Shah in favor of his yet more pliable son Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose Nazi sympathies were less overt.

    Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 8:43:58 PM | 60

    Does that sentence actually map to a coherent thought in your brain? A "puppet" Shah of English that was a Nazi sympathizer at the same time?

    https://www.thebhc.org/sites/default/files/beh/BEHprint/v016/p0069-p0082.pdf

    The above site will have your browser "warn" your about an insecure cert (since the link is https). Use the cache version from google if you are concerned.

    Full title of the document to read is: "The Imperial Bank of Iran" by Geoffrey Jones, London School of Economics.

    The foundation of the new Pahlavi dynasty by Reza Shah in the mid-1920s was followed by a campaign to modernize Iran, and to challenge foreign business. A central bank -- Bank Melli [means: National Bank] -- was founded in 1928. The Imperial Bank lost its role as state bank, and in 1933 had to relinquish its note-issuing powers. In the 1930s exchange controls and barter agreements destroyed the Bank's business in financing foreign trade. Foreign exchange business became increasingly centralized on Tehran, leaving the Bank's extensive provincial branch network to waste away. Opportunities to participate in Iranian industrialization were spurned as the Bank went into a corporate sulk. In 1936 the 7 Board members had an average age of 71, and an 83-year old Chairman who had become a director in 1913 after retiring from the Indian Civil Service.

    The directors resembled a collection of Old Testament prophets: they certainly had no sympathy for the NEW IRAN.

    Oy vey.

    During the time that the Britain and Russia had divided Iran into two zones of influence, the only rail line permitted to be constructed in Iran was a short line from Tehran to a nearby shrine.

    As noted earlier, any effort at industrialization by the Pahlavi Kings, was consistently viewed as a threat by the West.

    It was Reza Shah the Great that built the first Iranian Railroad.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Iranian_Railway

    Do have a tiny bit of clue what a basket case of a country Iran was after the Qajars were done with their disasterous rule over Iran?

    Here is the April 1921 issue of National Geographic on Iran. Good luck getting either NG or Google turning up this gem for you! National Geographic has even excised this issue from their collection of issues on Iran. Thank God for the Internet.

    http://www.k-en.com/gonagon/National_Geography_April_1921.pdf

    That basket case of a "country" was what Reza Shah the Great inherited. By the time he was exiled by the INVADERS of Iran, Iran had a functional central government, a National Bank not run by the Empire, secure borders, a fledgeling Airforce, universities, Women's rights, hospitals, schools, ..., and it goes on.

    Do you now have a tiny clue as to what Reza Shah'e Kabir [means: Great] did for Iran and why he was promptly exiled by the invaders of Iran?

    And they also miscalculated about his son, our beloved Shanshah Aryamehr. But they do love their Mullahs. Guess why.

    So let me repeat: We will write our history. Not poorly informed useful idiots of anti-Iranian Western propagandist.

    (We learned that lesson from the Herodotus episode, you see.)

    ghostship | Jul 23, 2017 6:03:50 AM | 63
    OMG. the Washington Borg's house newspaper has woken up to Trump's surrender to Putin on Syria.
    Trump's breathtaking surrender to Russia

    But once again, President Trump -- after extended personal contact with Vladimir Putin and the complete surrender to Russian interests in Syria -- acts precisely as though he has been bought and sold by a strategic rival. The ignoble cutoff of aid to American proxies means that "Putin won in Syria," as an administration official was quoted by The Post. Concessions without reciprocation, made against the better judgment of foreign policy advisers, smack more of payoff than outreach. If this is what Trump's version of "winning" looks like, what might further victory entail? The re- creation of the Warsaw Pact? The reversion of Alaska to Russian control?


    Although this opinion article was posted a couple of days ago, there been no shitstorm near Trump about it since suggesting that Trump's one-man distraction/disinformation smokescreen is firing successfully on all cylinders.
    Meanwhile, some in the US Army at least understand that once the battle to liquidate the ISIS Caliphate is other, they'll have problems remaining in Syria .
    'We're bad day away from Russians asking, 'Why are you still in Syria?' – top US commander

    A US special operations commander has admitted that an extended US stay in Syria runs contrary to international law and that Russia would be entirely justified in questioning its presence there.
    At the Aspen Security Forum on Friday, Special Operations Command chief Army General, Raymond Thomas was asked whether American forces will remain in Syria, after Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is defeated, possibly, to support the Kurdish forces in the north of the country.
    Thomas acknowledged that American forces are fighting in a sovereign Syria, where they will likely "have no ability to stay" if that presence is questioned "in terms of international law," Thomas said, replying to the Washington Post journalist's question.


    Although I'm sure that the State Department/Pentagon lawyers are looking for a reason to stay.
    somebody | Jul 23, 2017 6:40:48 AM | 64
    Posted by: nobody | Jul 22, 2017 11:08:41 PM | 61

    Yep. Made in the USA .

    By the time of Richard Nixon's arrival in office in January 1969, Iran was already America's single-largest arms purchaser. Whilst this is notable in and of itself, it is vastly overshadowed by what followed. By late 1972 Nixon leveraged U.S. Middle Eastern regional policy primarily around the focal point of a militarily strong, pro-American Iran.

    Sounds familiar?

    Iranian industrialization and westernization happened during the Shah. That is part of above story.

    Same story in Saudi Arabia .

    In Saudi Arabia, the 1960s, and especially the 1970s, had been years of explosive development, liberal experimentation, and openness to the West. A reversal of this trend came about abruptly in 1979, the year in which the Grand Mosque in Mecca came under attack by religiously motivated critics of the monarchy, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.

    My suspicion is that this "reversal" was also made in the USA as a consequence of the strategy to use Islam as a "green belt" against the Soviet Union.

    Same "reversal" from Atatürk happened in Turkey.

    nobody | Jul 23, 2017 8:02:08 AM | 65
    Posted by: somebody | Jul 23, 2017 6:40:48 AM | 63

    " ... to restore the Shah's autocracy ..."

    I'll get back to you on your OP but just wanted to note that little bit of misinformation from your first source.

    The fact is that the young Shah was not an "autocrat" before 1953. Per his own claims he was watchful of the chaotic events in Iran but did not wish to overstep the constitutional bounds placed on the monarchy. Per other critical points of view, he was a playboy king who neglected his duties and was doing the Riviera chacha and living up the La Dolce Vita scene. A middle of the road view would summize that there was some truth to both points of view, but would add that he was in no position to assume "autocratic" rule.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocrat

    --

    It is good to read others confirmation of my understanding about the sick tenets of our form of social organization.....private money and ongoing private ownership of property maintained by unfettered inheritance......It is not people that need to be eliminated but the tools that they use to exert power and control over the rest of us.

    Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 22, 2017 7:35:30 PM | 58

    ---

    It is of critical importance for the Resistance to respect the integrity of the language you use to think and reason about the world.

    somebody | Jul 23, 2017 8:23:24 AM | 66
    64
    No matter how great or small the Shah was - autocracy/monarchy is no model for any country.

    The context of what happened in 1978/79 is here .

    In the May 1979 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, Bernard Lewis, a British historian of great influence (hence, the Bilderberg membership), presented a British-American strategy which, "endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union."[13] Further, it would prevent Soviet influence from entering the Middle East, as the Soviet Union was viewed as an empire of atheism and godlessness: essentially a secular and immoral empire, which would seek to impose secularism across Muslim countries. So supporting radical Islamic groups would mean that the Soviet Union would be less likely to have any influence or relations with Middle Eastern countries, making the US a more acceptable candidate for developing relations.

    A 1979 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the Arc of Crisis, saying that, "The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism." It went on to explain that post-war US policy in the region was focused on "containment" of the Soviet Union, as well as access to the regions oil.[14] The article continued, explaining that the most "obvious division" within the Middle East is, "that which separates the Northern Tier (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan) from the Arab core," and that, "After World War II, Turkey and Iran were the two countries most immediately threatened by Soviet territorial expansionism and political subversion."[15] Ultimately, "the Northern Tier was assured of a serious and sustained American commitment to save it from sharing the fate of Eastern Europe."[16]

    This here is a view from Pakistan on the purposeful islamization of the region.

    somebody | Jul 23, 2017 9:29:18 AM | 67
    64) It does not matter how small or great the Shah was, monarchy is not a viable option for modern governance.

    Political Islam was and is supported by US geopolitical rationale .

    Often overlooked in retelling the story of this particular Afghan war is the fact that the insurgency was pan-Islamic: there were eight Shi'i groups, trained and funded by Iran.
    Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 9:42:27 AM | 68
    nobody 50
    About those "bizarre political fights." It sounds a lot like divide and conquer with all the fighters on the losing end expending themselves and resources while one group gets rich in the meantime. US MSM does not discuss the debt or what it really means or how to address it. During the Geithner/Bernanke protect the Fed tour, Geithner said it was most important that the US keep paying interest on the debt with no mention of paying the debt itself.
    Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 9:51:59 AM | 69
    nobody 61
    Thanks for that link/story. I lived there from 70 to 72 as a young boy. Modernization vs the islamists vs student protests was going on. Even now there is a virtual divide of the capital north and south. My brother climbed Tochal (Tehran) and wanted to climb Demavand. During any religious holidy we were told to keep a very low profile and my father told me to avoid buildings with the black flag (with arabic writing) hanging. Shahanshah did good in spite of himself.
    Peter AU. | Jul 23, 2017 10:03:12 AM | 70
    took some time to dig up but, as noted earlier, any effort at industrialization by the Pahlavi Kings, was alway viewed as a threat by the West.

    It was Reza Shah that built the first Iranian Railroad:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Iranian_Railway


    http://www.k-en.com/gonagon/National_Geography_April_1921.pdf

    Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 10:55:39 AM | 71
    My family once traveled the route from Tehran to the Caspian that ran along the rail route for a while. Desert east of Tehran but once in the mountains it's very lush and green. There are lots of tunnels and switchbacks along the rail route.
    Veresk Bridge
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge
    Austrian designed the bridge. But Germany was partners in the rail effort. The wiki version of the legend says the engineers were under the bridge for the first crossing. The legend we heard was that they rode the train across to prove its sturdiness.
    nobody | Jul 23, 2017 11:37:25 AM | 72
    64) It does not matter how small or great the Shah was, monarchy is not a viable option for modern governance.

    Political Islam was and is supported by US geopolitical rationale.

    Posted by: somebody | Jul 23, 2017 9:29:18 AM | 65

    I do not have access to a methodology that would determine the suitability of 'system x' vs 'system y' for "modern governance". That very formulation in quotes itself presents problems for me. What do you mean by modern? And if you think I am advocating a return of Kings in Iran, I would not wish the throne of Iran on my worst enemy. Clearly it is a thankless job.

    I also used to hold the view that the architecture of the system was the determinant of its viability. Spending 4 decades in the West has disabused me of such notions. Consider the United States of America, with a (relatively) robust consitution, seperation of powers, elections, etc. Indeed, consider the depth to which that Republic has fallen and the progressively diminishing stature of "Presidents" of the Americans with the current vulgarian as the exclamation mark.

    Now I am convinced that foundational principles (equal treatment before law, transparency, inalienable rights, ..) and a continually renewed generational allegiance to these principles is what really matters. It makes no difference if you possess even a sublime consitution, if the society is corrupt, duplicity and deception are the social norm, and the minds of the populace are 'backdoored' by propaganda, idle amusements, and excitation of the Triune brain designed to suppress the higher mind functions, all is lost regardless of the nominal political 'system'.

    In principle, I reject ideology as a sound basis for thought, speech, or action (collectively or personally). I am Human, not a soul-less Machine, and reject formalism as a governing principle for my thoughts.

    I am an empiricist. It is, all things considered, the most practical and sensible approach to mapping a space of possibilities. Empiricism does not place a straight jacket on your mental processes, does not lead you to dead ends you can not back out off, and it does not appeal to sentiment, nor does it agitate the excitable youth.

    It may be that Monarchy is better suited to the psychological disposition of some people. Or maybe it is not. Review and compare note. (Today the Islamic Republic has been in power for 38 years. The Shah of Iran reigned for 37 years. Which Iran would you prefer to live in?)

    That said, as Pft and ProPeace have noted, when the controlling component of a society is occult, oy vey to the subjects who have no idea to whom they must address the grievances. At least with a king, you know whose head need to be cut off.

    ~

    Political Islam in modern Iran:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Din_al-Afghani
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naser_al-Din_Shah_Qajar#Assassination
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Protest

    That last event, which I applaud, must have underlined the importance of getting in bed with the priests to the British.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fadayan-e_Islam << "alleged terrorist organization" Wikipedia cracks me up
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalil_Tahmassebi << the "alleged" terrorist

    Political Islam was and is supported by US geopolitical rationale.

    (Remember Nixon.)

    The problem with the American thinking set, in my opinion, is that they suffer from a sense of civilizational and intellectual inferiority relative to their European "cousins" and consistently undervalue the indigenous mind products. Let's just leave it at that.

    nobody | Jul 23, 2017 12:00:13 PM | 73
    Posted by: Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 9:51:59 AM | 67
    Posted by: Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 10:55:39 AM | 69

    How cool. My vivid memories of Iran are in the 74-79 range. Best days of my life. Those were the golden years. And of course, going to Shomaal ("North") for vacation by the Caspian was always a treat. Driving on that road could get hairy at times but it was a really fun drive.

    Of course I recognize that as a member of the (meritocratic) middle class that the Pahlavi dynasty was creating to cement their rule and counter the extant Qajar princelings that formed the covertly hostile 'court' in Iran, the Iran that I experienced was distinct from the (self-admittadly) "confused" and "frustrated" intelligentsia that the clerics of Iran spawned. But as a thought experiment, I would love to ressurect the following gents and sincerely ask them: Are you pleased with your handy work?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_Al-e-Ahmad
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Shariati

    Peter AU. | Jul 23, 2017 1:42:26 PM | 74
    Also, check this out;

    Political Islam in modern Iran:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Din_al-Afghani

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naser_al-Din_Shah_Qajar#Assassination

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Protest


    somebody | Jul 23, 2017 1:55:38 PM | 75

    73 - Iranians seem to be doing something right

    Increase of life expectancy in Iran

    Peter AU. | Jul 23, 2017 2:28:09 PM | 76
    And this, great Iranian achievements;

    http://countryeconomy.com/demography/life-expectancy/iran

    nobody, | Jul 23, 2017 2:30:03 PM | 77
    73 is not me.
    somebody | Jul 23, 2017 2:52:02 PM | 78
    add

    List of countries by incarceration rate

    United States double of Iran
    Death penalty per million people

    If Iran abolished the death penalty they would have the moral high ground.

    ProPeace | Jul 23, 2017 11:16:25 PM | 79
    @nobody | Jul 23, 2017 11:37:25 et. al thanks for your input, appreciate sharing your views.

    No doubt the greatest challenge Iran will face soon is self-determination, it's clear the rule of ayatollahs is coming to an end and the people in Iran will have to carefully transition to some better model.

    I'm not worried about possibility of Iran being attacked, we (the world) are from that point now. Although it was very close during Bush 43 when luckily he made one sober crucial decision as the POTUS:

    Gwyneth Todd Against the New World Order!A Dialogue (Part I)

    ProPeace | Jul 23, 2017 11:18:27 PM | 80
    "...we (the world) are FAR from...", "...during Bush 43 but luckily..."
    psychohistorian | Jul 24, 2017 1:14:03 AM | 81
    I say this recent interview of Iran's Foreign Minister and thought it relevant here

    Iran's Foreign Minister quoted as saying Saudi Arabia is behind 94% of terrorist events

    say/saw....at least my quote doesn't break the format.....grin

    Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 24, 2017 1:18:23 AM | 82

    say/saw....at least my quote doesn't break the format.....grin

    Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 24, 2017 1:18:23 AM | 82 /div

    [Jul 21, 2017] How The Elites Betrayed Working-Class America by Bill Bonner

    Jul 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored via InternationalMan.com,

    ... ... ...

    The typical American day laborer has gained little.

    And job competition from overseas made him feel like a loser. Now he wants walls – to keep out foreigners and foreign-made products. He wants win-lose deals that guarantee to make him a winner again.

    He has no idea that he was set up by his own elite.

    Former Fed chiefs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan got their pictures on the cover of Time magazine. Most people think they are heroes, not rascals. Most people think they saved the economy from another Great Depression by dropping interest rates and injecting it with trillions of dollars in quantitative easing (QE) money.

    Most people – even the POTUS – believe we need more fake money to "prime the pump" and get the economy rolling again.

    Almost no one realizes it, but it was these stimulating, pump-priming, new credit-based dollars that fueled the trends that ruined America's working-class wage earner.

    Overseas, his competitors used cheap credit to gain market share and take away his job. At home, the elite imposed their crony boondoggles their regulations and their win-lose deals – all financed with fake money.

    The average American's medical care now costs him more than seven times more than it did in 1980. His household debt rose nearly 12 times since 1980.

    ... ... ...

    Recently we've been wondering if it's possible that America could be on the brink of a second civil war. We did some digging and while the stuff we found may offend and shock you We recommend you take a look anyway by clicking here.

    TeamDepends , Jul 21, 2017 6:32 PM

    Everything "the elite" does betrays the working class.

    Captain Chlamydia -> TeamDepends , Jul 21, 2017 6:34 PM

    https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    Sonny Brakes , Jul 21, 2017 6:37 PM

    And the working class played along knowing full well that they were being duped. Got to support the team.

    silverer , Jul 21, 2017 6:42 PM

    Money creation without productivity is a truly inspiring phenomenon.

    GRDguy , Jul 21, 2017 6:42 PM

    They're not "elite," they're sociopaths. They lie and steal without empathy nor conscience.

    People running independent businesses are not usually sociopaths. But top executives of major corporations usually are.

    [Jul 12, 2017] The Syrian Test of the Trump-Putin Accord by Ray McGovern

    Schizophrenic and very well armed America is a real danger to the world...
    The USA is no longer can be considered as a country that can obey agreements and treaties signed. That means that it is pariah on international stage and only the power of Us military-industrial complex keeps other countries from spitting in the US representatives face.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle. ..."
    "... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels." ..."
    "... But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
    "... Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others. ..."
    "... In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin). ..."
    "... The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26: ..."
    "... "My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief." ..."
    "... Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners." ..."
    "... Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented: ..."
    "... "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice." ..."
    "... It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing. ..."
    "... Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach! ..."
    "... America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles. ..."
    Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

    The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing so again, all the better to keep alive the "regime change" dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists?

    Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to win out?

    These are truly life-or-death questions for the Syrian people and could have profound repercussions across Europe, which has been destabilized by the flood of refugees fleeing the horrific violence in the six-year proxy war that has ripped Syria apart.

    But you would have little inkling of this important priority from the large page-one headlines Saturday morning in the U.S. mainstream media, which continued its long obsession with the more ephemeral question of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would confess to the sin of "interference" in the 2016 U.S. election and promise to repent.

    Thus, the headlines: "Trump, Putin talk election interference" ( Washington Post ) and "Trump asks Putin About Meddling During Election" ( New York Times ). There was also the expected harrumphing from commentators on CNN and MSNBC when Putin dared to deny that Russia had interfered.

    In both the big newspapers and on cable news shows, the potential for a ceasefire in southern Syria – set to go into effect on Sunday – got decidedly second billing.

    Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle.

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels."

    But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad.

    Bitter Experience

    Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others.

    In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin).

    The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:

    "My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief."

    Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners."

    Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:

    "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice."

    On Syria, Putin decried the lack of a "common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises."

    Lavrov's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, meanwhile, even expressed sympathy for Kerry's quixotic effort, giving him an "A" for effort.after then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dispatched U.S. warplanes to provide an early death to the cease-fire so painstakingly worked out by Kerry and Lavrov for almost a year.

    For his part, Kerry expressed regret – in words reflecting the hapless hubris befitting the chief envoy of the world's "only indispensible" country – conceding that he had been unable to "align" all the forces in play.

    With the ceasefire in tatters, Kerry publicly complained on Sept. 29, 2016: "Syria is as complicated as anything I've ever seen in public life, in the sense that there are probably about six wars or so going on at the same time – Kurd against Kurd, Kurd against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni, Shia, everybody against ISIL, people against Assad, Nusra [Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate]. This is as mixed-up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it's very, very difficult to be able to align forces."

    Admitting Deep-State Pre-eminence

    Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe , did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

    "Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire agreement] extremely hard to accomplish," Kerry said. "But it could have worked. The fact is we had an agreement with Russia a joint cooperative effort.

    "Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that," he said. "I regret that. I think that was a mistake. I think you'd have a different situation there conceivably now if we'd been able to do that."

    The Globe's Viser described Kerry as frustrated. Indeed, it was a tough way for Kerry to end nearly 34 years in public office.

    After Friday's discussions with President Trump, Kremlin eyes will be focused on Secretary of State Tillerson, watching to see if he has better luck than Kerry did in getting Ashton Carter's successor, James "Mad Dog" Mattis and CIA's latest captive-director Pompeo into line behind what President Trump wants to do.

    As the new U.S.-Russia agreed-upon ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, Putin will be eager to see if this time Trump, unlike Obama, can make a ceasefire in Syria stick; or whether, like Obama, Trump will be unable to prevent it from being sabotaged by Washington's deep-state actors.

    The proof will be in the pudding and, clearly, much depends on what happens in the next few weeks. At this point, it will take a leap of faith on Putin's part to have much confidence that the ceasefire will hold.

    Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected] . A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

    Andrei Martyanov , Website July 11, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

    Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

    It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing.

    Carlton Meyer , Website July 12, 2017 at 4:31 am GMT

    Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach!

    I watched part of Oliver Stone's interview. The reason Snowden remains in Russia is because the USA refuses to sign an extradition treaty with Russia. There are several Russians living in the USA wanted for looting large sums in Russia, and Putin wants justice, but they are exempt, like Hillary. Read about her Russian Uranium kickback deal, its on-line, but of no interest to our corporate media.

    Not news in the USA!

    Ram , July 12, 2017 at 10:06 am GMT

    @Sean " Assad could not win a free election and everyone knows it. "

    Just as everyone knows that Russia won the election for Trump as enunciated by the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley.

    Jon Halpenny , July 12, 2017 at 10:33 am GMT

    Sean, that is pure nonsense. America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles.

    [Jul 10, 2017] The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months. What It Means For The Russia Narrative

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... the Associated Press ..."
    "... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
    "... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
    "... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer. ..."
    "... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
    "... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
    Jul 10, 2017 | dailycaller.com
    When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.

    A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.

    "The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now reports . "The rest were doing other work."

    Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.

    "The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.

    A few days later, the Associated Press echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.

    The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.

    The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.

    "17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies," CNN blared .

    The New York Times took it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading" narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."

    Journalists eagerly tweeted out these headlines .

    But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political operatives and anonymous "officials."

    Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from the top.

    The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report incorrectly claiming there are 19 intelligence agencies).

    She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.

    "I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing."

    Trump took the bait.

    "She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated over and over in the press as evidence he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."

    With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.

    Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And the fact checks came rolling in. The New York Times , Politico , ABC News , Politifact and PBS all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number with authority in its reporting, saying in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."

    The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.

    "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.

    Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now framed it as common knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"

    The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking." The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."

    All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes, the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.

    The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.

    That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down at the speed of common sense and Google.

    Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.

    Nevertheless, the claim persisted.

    "All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump in an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"

    "[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the contrary," the Daily Beast reported that same day .

    NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget in a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.

    "Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning was clear."

    Reuters, too, touted the number in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.

    The declassified DNI report that followed in January provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)

    A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.

    "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."

    And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting the record.

    "The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And we all know how that's right."

    Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly involved in this assessment, plus my office."

    "But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.

    "Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."

    So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they, since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?

    At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.

    Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim in an interview with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.

    "Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence' that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."

    A little while later the bogus claim showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then twice more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well in a June 11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim, which was rather strangely corrected four days later.

    After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where does that number come from?" Acosta asked.

    And all the time , the tweets from journos eager to harp on the Trump-Russia narrative kept coming .

    The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim mostly false in a separate fact check.

    So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.

    We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters -- proved more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia investigation.

    The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.

    Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.

    The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.

    Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30." Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.

    In a report casting the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe. The White House refuted the anecdote in no uncertain terms the following day.

    Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer.

    CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey would refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such thing. In fact he corroborated Trump's account .

    Just weeks after retracting a story on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course, it was wrong . One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.

    We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.

    The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.

    Follow Rachel on Twitter Send tips to rachel@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

    [Jul 02, 2017] Does the global neoliberal elite represents a parasitic entity ? If we are talking about financial oligarchy then the answer is yes

    The fact that considerable part of financial elite is Jewish changed nothing
    www.moonofalabama.org

    pantaraxia | Jul 2, 2017 9:08:27 AM | 64

    @45 smuks

    Careful about that 'parasites' thing.

    The conflict is systemic, deeply rooted in the current (dominant) socio-economic order. Reducing it to a narrative of 'parasitic global elites' risks encouraging simplistic 'answers', i.e. laying the blame on certain groups of people.

    Last time it was the Jews...who's turn now?

    ...Your obvious apprehension over the demonization of 'parasitic global elites' is addressed here:

    New Rule: Save the Rich Fcks | Real Time with Bill Maher
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahpp27WAT2M

    PS: Its interesting to note that in the context of discussing 'parasitic global elites' you bring up the subject of Jews, contextually implying some sort of association. There are numerous Jewish organizations that would accuse you of practicing 'dog whistle politics' here.

    [Jul 01, 2017] Americans are mostly either fed-up, checked out, suffering from Stockholm syndrome, or some combination of the these.

    Jul 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Peter AU | Jun 30, 2017 8:49:39 PM | 34

    @NemesisCalling | Jun 30, 2017 8:21:54 PM | 31

    The US could be divided into three or more parts.

    1. First the US as a state, which is its government. Neo-cons/full spectrum dominance ect.
    2. Second the US culture in general, Exceptionalism/arrogance that gave rise to the state.
    3. Third is the tiny percentage of Americans who do not have the culture of exceptionalism and arrogance.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 30, 2017 9:38:11 PM | 37

    I too am an American that is awake.

    There are many US Libertarians, Progressives, and others that are dismayed at the exceptional! go-along-to-get-along and corporate-controlled media, all led by neolibcons that want MOAR!

    Americans are (mostly) either fed-up, checked out, suffering from Stockholm syndrome, or some combination of the these. What they need a kick-in-the-ass. And that is likely to come from what has been termed "the reset": a point at which the can can no longer be kicked.

    smuks | Jun 30, 2017 8:50:51 PM | 35

    @Nemesis

    Well said...!
    I know there are many highly intelligent Americans, who are already today suffering and paying a price. And I agree that (widespread) anti-American sentiment is as stupid and reactionary as any other form of nationalism. It's just another 'divide and rule' ideology to keep ordinary people at each others' throats, rather than see them united against their common enemy, the global so-called 'elite'/ oligarchs.
    Playing groups of people against one another is the oldest domination trick in the world, but it seems to work every single time...sad! ;-)

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

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Oligarchs compete and alternate with one another over controlling and defining who votes and doesn't vote. They decide who secures plutocratic financing and mass media propaganda within a tiny corporate sector. 'Voter choice' refers to deciding which preselected candidates are acceptable for carrying out an agenda of imperial conquests, deepening class inequalities and securing legal impunity for the oligarchs, their political representatives and state, police and military officials. ..."
    "... The politicians who participate in the restrictive and minoritarian electoral system, with its predetermined oligarchic results, celebrate 'elections' as a democratic process because a plurality of voters, as subordinate subjects, are incorporated. ..."
    "... The striking differences in the rate of abstention in France, Puerto Rico and the UK reflect the levels of class dissatisfaction and rejection of electoral politics. ..."
    "... Corbyn's foreign policy promised to end the UK's involvement in imperial wars and to withdraw troops from the Middle East. He also re-confirmed his long opposition to Israel's colonial land-grabbing and oppression of the Palestinian people, as a principled way to reduce terrorist attacks at home. ..."
    "... In other words, Corbyn recognized that introducing real class-based politics would increase voter participation. This was especially true among young voters in the 18-25 year age group, who were among the UK citizens most harmed by the loss of stable factory jobs, the doubling of university fees and the cuts in national health services. ..."
    "... In contrast, the French legislative elections saw the highest rate of voter abstention since the founding of the 5 th Republic. These high rates reflect broad popular opposition to ultra-neo-liberal President Francois Macron and the absence of real opposition parties engaged in class struggle. ..."
    "... The established parties and the media work in tandem to confine elections to a choreographed contest among competing elites divorced from direct participation by the working classes. This effectively excludes the citizens who have been most harmed by the ruling class' austerity programs implemented by successive rightist and Social Democratic parties ..."
    "... The vast majority of citizens in the wage and salaried class do not trust the political elites. They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats. ..."
    "... Most citizens recognize (and despise) the mass media as elite propaganda megaphones fabricating 'popular' images to promote anti-working class politicians, while demonizing political activists engaged in class-based struggles. ..."
    "... Modern "Democracy" is a system for privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get the power, the masses have to take responsibility for the consequences. because, of course, it's a 'democracy.' ..."
    Jun 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Introduction

    The most striking feature of recent elections is not ' who won or who lost' , nor is it the personalities, parties and programs. The dominant characteristic of the elections is the widespread repudiation of the electoral system, political campaigns, parties and candidates.

    Across the world, majorities and pluralities of citizens of voting age refuse to even register to vote (unless obligated by law), refuse to turn out to vote (voter abstention), or vote against all the candidates (boycott by empty ballot and ballot spoilage).

    If we add the many citizen activists who are too young to vote, citizens denied voting rights because of past criminal (often minor) convictions, impoverished citizens and minorities denied voting rights through manipulation and gerrymandering, we find that the actual 'voting public' shrivel to a small minority.

    As a result, present day elections have been reduced to a theatrical competition among the elite for the votes of a minority. This situation describes an oligarchy – not a healthy democracy.

    Oligarchic Competition

    Oligarchs compete and alternate with one another over controlling and defining who votes and doesn't vote. They decide who secures plutocratic financing and mass media propaganda within a tiny corporate sector. 'Voter choice' refers to deciding which preselected candidates are acceptable for carrying out an agenda of imperial conquests, deepening class inequalities and securing legal impunity for the oligarchs, their political representatives and state, police and military officials.

    Oligarchic politicians depend on the systematic plundering Treasury to facilitate and protect billion dollar/billion euro stock market swindles and the illegal accumulation of trillions of dollars and Euros via tax evasion (capital flight) and money laundering.

    The results of elections and the faces of the candidates may change but the fundamental economic and military apparatus remains the same to serve an ever tightening oligarchic rule.

    The elite regimes change, but the permanence of state apparatus designed to serve the elite becomes ever more obvious to the citizens.

    Why the Oligarchy Celebrates " Democracy "

    The politicians who participate in the restrictive and minoritarian electoral system, with its predetermined oligarchic results, celebrate 'elections' as a democratic process because a plurality of voters, as subordinate subjects, are incorporated.

    Academics, journalists and experts argue that a system in which elite competition defines citizen choice has become the only way to protect 'democracy' from the irrational 'populist' rhetoric appealing to a mass of citizens vulnerable to authoritarianism (the so-called ' deplorables' ). The low voter turn-out in recent elections reduces the threat posed by such undesirable voters.

    A serious objective analysis of present-day electoral politics demonstrates that when the masses do vote for their class interests – the results deepen and extend social democracy. When most voters, non-voters and excluded citizens choose to abstain or boycott elections they have sound reasons for repudiating plutocratic-controlled oligarchic choices.

    We will proceed to examine the recent June 2017 voter turnout in the elections in France, the United Kingdom and Puerto Rico. We will then look at the intrinsic irrationality of citizens voting for elite politicos as opposed to the solid good sense of the popular classes rejection of elite elections and their turn to extra-parliamentary action.

    Puerto Rico's Referendum

    The major TV networks (NBC, ABC and CBS) and the prestigious print media ( New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times and Washington Post ) hailed the ' overwhelming victory' of the recent pro-annexationist vote in Puerto Rico. They cited the 98% vote in favor of becoming a US state!

    The media ignored the fact that a mere 28% of Puerto Ricans participated in the elections to vote for a total US takeover. Over 77% of the eligible voters abstained or boycotted the referendum.

    In other words, over three quarters of the Puerto Rican people rejected the sham ' political elite election '. Instead, the majority voted with their feet in the streets through direct action.

    France's Micro-Bonaparte

    In the same way, the mass media celebrated what they dubbed a ' tidal wave ' of electoral support for French President Emmanuel Macron and his new party, 'the Republic in March'. Despite the enormous media propaganda push for Macron, a clear majority of the electorate (58%) abstained or spoiled their ballots, therefore rejecting all parties and candidates, and the entire French electoral system. This hardly constitutes a 'tidal wave' of citizen support in a democracy.

    During the first round of the parliamentary election, President Macron's candidates received 27% of the vote, barely exceeding the combined vote of the left socialist and nationalist populist parties, which had secured 25% of the vote. In the second round, Macron's party received less then 20% of the eligible vote.

    In other words, the anti-Macron rejectionists represented over three quarters of the French electorate. After these elections a significant proportion of the French people – especially among the working class –will likely choose extra-parliamentary direct action, as the most democratic expression of representative politics.

    The United Kingdom: Class Struggle and the Election Results

    The June 2017 parliamentary elections in the UK resulted in a minority Conservative regime forced to form an alliance with the fringe Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), a far-right para-military Protestant party from Northern Ireland. The Conservatives received 48% of registered voters to 40% who voted for the Labor Party. However, 15 million citizens, or one-third of the total electorate abstained or spoiled their ballots. The Conservative regime's plurality represented 32% of the electorate.

    Despite a virulent anti-Labor campaign in the oligarch-controlled mass media, the combined Labor vote and abstaining citizens clearly formed a majority of the population, which will be excluded from any role the post-election oligarchic regime despite the increase in the turnout (in comparison to previous elections).

    Elections: Oligarchs in Office, Workers in the Street

    The striking differences in the rate of abstention in France, Puerto Rico and the UK reflect the levels of class dissatisfaction and rejection of electoral politics.

    The UK elections provided the electorate with something resembling a class alternative in the candidacy of Jeremy Corbyn. The Labor Party under Corbyn presented a progressive social democratic program promising substantial and necessary increases in social welfare spending (health, education and housing) to be funded by higher progressive taxes on the upper and upper middle class.

    Corbyn's foreign policy promised to end the UK's involvement in imperial wars and to withdraw troops from the Middle East. He also re-confirmed his long opposition to Israel's colonial land-grabbing and oppression of the Palestinian people, as a principled way to reduce terrorist attacks at home.

    In other words, Corbyn recognized that introducing real class-based politics would increase voter participation. This was especially true among young voters in the 18-25 year age group, who were among the UK citizens most harmed by the loss of stable factory jobs, the doubling of university fees and the cuts in national health services.

    In contrast, the French legislative elections saw the highest rate of voter abstention since the founding of the 5 th Republic. These high rates reflect broad popular opposition to ultra-neo-liberal President Francois Macron and the absence of real opposition parties engaged in class struggle.

    The lowest voter turn-out (28%) occurred in Puerto Rico. This reflects growing mass opposition to the corrupt political elite, the economic depression and the colonial and semi-colonial offerings of the two-major parties. The absence of political movements and parties tied to class struggle led to greater reliance on direct action and voter abstention.

    Clearly class politics is the major factor determining voter turnout. The absence of class struggle increases the power of the elite mass media, which promotes the highly divisive identity politics and demonizes left parties. All of these increase both abstention and the vote for rightwing politicians, like Macron.

    The mass media grossly inflated the significance of the right's election victories of the while ignoring the huge wave of citizens rejecting the entire electoral process. In the case of the UK, the appearance of class politics through Jeremy Corbyn increased voter turnout for the Labor Party. However, Labor has a history of first making left promises and ending up with right turns. Any future Labor betrayal will increase voter abstention.

    The established parties and the media work in tandem to confine elections to a choreographed contest among competing elites divorced from direct participation by the working classes. This effectively excludes the citizens who have been most harmed by the ruling class' austerity programs implemented by successive rightist and Social Democratic parties.

    The decision of many citizens not to vote is based on taking a very rational and informed view of the ruling political elites who have slashed their living standards often by forcing workers to compete with immigrants for low paying, unstable jobs. It is deeply rational for citizens to refuse to vote within a rigged system, which only worsens their living conditions through its attacks on the public sector, social welfare and labor codes while cutting taxes on capital.

    Conclusion

    The vast majority of citizens in the wage and salaried class do not trust the political elites. They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats.

    Most citizens recognize (and despise) the mass media as elite propaganda megaphones fabricating 'popular' images to promote anti-working class politicians, while demonizing political activists engaged in class-based struggles.

    Nevertheless, elite elections will not produce an effective consolidation of rightwing rule. Voter abstention will not lead to abstention from direct action when the citizens recognize their class interests are in grave jeopardy.

    The Macron regime's parliamentary majority will turn into an impotent minority as soon as he tries carry out his elite promise to slash the jobs of hundreds of thousands of French public sector workers, smash France's progressive labor codes and the industry-wide collective bargaining system and pursue new colonial wars.

    Puerto Rico's profound economic depression and social crisis will not be resolved through a referendum with only 28% of the voter participation. Large-scale demonstrations will preclude US annexation and deepen mass demands for class-based alternatives to colonial rule.

    Conservative rule in the UK is divided by inter-elite rivalries both at home and abroad. ' Brexit' , the first step in the break-up of the EU, opens opportunities for deeper class struggle. The social-economic promises made by Jeremy Corbyn and his left-wing of the Labor Party energized working class voters, but if it does not fundamentally challenge capital, it will revert to being a marginal force.

    The weakness and rivalries within the British ruling class will not be resolved in Parliament or by any new elections.

    The demise of the UK, the provocation of a Conservative-DUP alliance and the end of the EU (BREXIT) raises the chance for successful mass extra-parliamentary struggles against the authoritarian neo-liberal attacks on workers' civil rights and class interests.

    Elite elections and their outcomes in Europe and elsewhere are laying the groundwork for a revival and radicalization of the class struggle.

    In the final analysis class rule is not decided via elite elections among oligarchs and their mass media propaganda. Once dismissed as a 'vestige of the past', the revival of class struggle is clearly on the horizon.

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


    Brás Cubas Show Comment Next New Comment June 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT

    A much needed analysis by Mr. Petras. Here in Brazil it is becoming increasingly apparent that extra-electoral manifestations are the only path left for the destitute classes. The only name to which the Left seems able to garner votes is the eternal Luiz da Silva, who has pandered to Capital all through his political career, and will possibly become inelectable anyway, by upcoming criminal convictions.

    WorkingClass Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    "In the final analysis class rule is not decided via elite elections among oligarchs and their mass media propaganda. Once dismissed as a 'vestige of the past', the revival of class struggle is clearly on the horizon."

    Globalism is the new Feudalism. In the U.S. the serfs still think they are "middle class".

    Only the working class can help the working class. This truism is being re-learned.

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

    We see in any country with a district voting system how democracy does not function: USA, GB and France.
    The Dutch equal representation system is far superior, the present difficulties of forming a government reflect the deep divisions in Dutch society.
    These deep divisions should be clear anywhere, now that the struggle between globalisation and nationalism is in full swing.

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 7:28 am GMT

    @Brás Cubas In nearly the whole of S America elections just reflect the struggle between two or more groups of rich people for power.

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 9:05 am GMT

    The vast majority citizens (sic) in the wage and salaried class do not trust the political elites. They see electoral campaigns as empty exercises, financed by and for plutocrats.

    And they'd be correct.

    What amazes me is how many "professional" people still smugly retain faith in an obviously rigged and parasitic system even as their independence is relentlessly eroded. Also, most of them, even the non-TV watchers, seem to slurp the usual propaganda about who the enemies supposedly are.

    Self reflection obviously ain't their shtick. Maybe there's comfort in denial and mythology.

    Expletive Deleted Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 11:38 am GMT

    The DUP would be very quick to insist that they are not para-militaries. As would their Tweedledee, Sinn Féin (invariably referred to as 'Sinn-Féin-I-R-A' by the Unionist factions; not even banter).

    It is undeniable that in the past they have had links to UVF/UDA, both straight-up rightwing paramilitary thug outfits formed to mirror and combat the Provisionals and latterly the Continuity IRA and self-styled "Real IRA" nationalist/socialist thugs. And presumably do so to this day.

    "Everybody knows" that each political group is pretty much furtively hand-in-glove with their respective heavy mobs, and who's in which one. It's a wee tiny place, the Six Counties.

    Expletive Deleted Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 11:59 am GMT

    Corbyn has definitely struck a rich vein of popularity (if not populism) among the "don't vote it just encourages them" tendency, and a healthy majority of wealthy and not so wealthy young Brits. Listen to the Glasto crowd. He gets this everywhere now in public (and maybe at home, IDK).

    Remarkable transformation for somebody who only few years ago was a dull grey teadrinker from Camden Council, with a half-century-old cardigan and a Catweazle beard.

    Even The Demon Blair could never raise this sort of adulation.

    eD Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

    I want to like the article, but Petras gives three examples, all of which are bad examples for different reasons.

    In the case of Puerto Rico, opposition parties campaigned, not for people to vote and to vote against the government position, but to abstain altogether. This is a long standing political tactic of opposition parties and other examples can be found. Its not used that often because its usually a better tactic to just try to get people to get out and vote against the government. However, it can work if there is a minimum turnout requirement for the election to be valid, which is often the case in referenda and seems to be here. But this is evident of people rejecting the government position, not the entire system. Voters obviously responded to the pro-Commonwealth status campaign. By the way, usually referenda on things like independence, or in this case statehood, get unusually high turnout, it was the opposite this time because of the opposition tactic.

    On the other hand, in the 2017 French elections there really was a high amount of non-organized or dis-organized abstention on the part of pissed off voters. The problem with Petras account is that this was in fact widely covered in French media and by French political analysts, with commentary along the lines of "these people must be really pissed off not to vote!".

    In the recent UK elections turnout was both quite high and increased, so I have no idea wtf Petras is talking about here.

    If the examples used weren't so ridiculously bad the article could be OK I guess.

    High abstention rates occur when big chunks of the electorate suspect that the elections are rigged, usually by means of vote counting fraud, but effective or legal restrictions on who can run or who can vote can do the job. The rigging might even take the form of discarding ballots, which is the most common form in the US, which means turnout would be recorded as low even if people tried to vote!

    Keep in mind that with universal suffrage, it seems consistently that about a quarter of the electorate has no interest in participating in electoral politics whatever the situation. If forced to vote by law, they will spoil their ballots, vote for parties that campaign to end the democratic system, or not vote anyway and suffer whatever legal penalties are imposed. Reasonably healthy democracies can get to turnouts of around 70% fairly consistently. Anything less should be taken as evidence of widespread electoral fraud.

    TG Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT

    Modern "Democracy" is a system for privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get the power, the masses have to take responsibility for the consequences. because, of course, it's a 'democracy.'

    Bottom line: political systems are to a great extent irrelevant. Putting your faith in any system: monarchy, socialism, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, checks and balances, etc., is a mistake. There is (almost) no system that cannot be made to muddle through if the elites have some consideration for the society as a whole. And there is absolutely no system that cannot be easily corrupted if the elites care only about themselves.

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra

    In nearly the whole of S America elections just reflect the struggle between two or more groups of rich people for power.

    The same could be said for the revolution of 1776, and it continues in the US today.

    I said, "No, there is a great difference. Taft is amiable imbecility. Wilson is willful and malicious imbecility and I prefer Taft."
    Roosevelt then said : "Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both controlled by the same influences, and I am going to organize a new party " a new political party " in this country based upon progressive principles.
    "Roosevelt then said : "Pettigrew, you know the two old parties are just alike. They are both controlled by the same influences "

    - R. F. Pettigrew, "Imperial Washington," The story of American Public life from 1870 to 1920 (1922), p 234

    https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=amiable;id=yale.39002002948025;view=1up;seq=7;start=1;sz=10;page=search;orient=0

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT

    I recommend not voting because it is not ethical to send a non-corrupt person to Washington. The United States is too powerful.

    Good recommendation and for a good reason.

    I'd say that it's unethical to send anyone to Washington since there is too much wealth and power concentrated in the hands of too few, ethical or not.

    In fact, the record shows that few men are worthy to wield much power at all and a system such as we have is almost guaranteed to produce hideous, irresponsible monsters if not downright sadistic ones (like Hillary, for instance).

    Instead of talking about draining the swamp, we should have flushed the toilet long go. Now we have to live with the stench.

    Wally Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT

    @Expletive Deleted Looks like a Trump rally.

    http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/AP_Donald_Trump_Rally_hb_160310_4x3_992.jpg

    Wally Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

    @Daniel Thom Hmmm.

    President Trump Has Now Signed 40 Pieces Of Legislation As He Moves To Enact His Agenda

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/25/president-trump-has-now-signed-40-pieces-of-legislation-as-he-moves-to-enact-his-agenda/

    bluedog Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra Yes indeed just like it is here in the election between Clinton and Trump, two packs of wolves fighting over the sheep

    unpc downunder Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT

    The primary reason why lots of working class people don't vote is because they dislike the liberal policy combinations offered by the elite-controlled political parties. Most working class people are socially conservative and economically moderate, while most wealthy, educated people are socially and economically liberal, so mainstream political parties only offer liberal policy packages.

    Modern representative democracy was designed in the late 19th Century to allow for some democratic representation for the middle class while protecting the bourgeois elites from the rule of the mob. That may have been a reasonable concern at the time, but it now means tyranny of the liberal elites.

    The solution is to reduce the power of political parties, either by making political parties more accountable to their grass roots supporters or getting rid of political parties and directly electing government ministers.

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment July 1, 2017 at 12:20 am GMT

    @eD A well informed comment without the kind of Marxist or other blinkers on that Petras wears. But I question the last sentence. Electoral fraud could work to add votes as well as destroy or lose them and vigilance is needed anyway. Are there highly numerate and worldly wise psephologists with adequate research funding who are acting plausibly to keep a check on the way the bureaucratic guardians of our electoral processes do their job? (All sorts of factors could make a big difference in the proportion who vote. Is it part of the culture one was broůght up in to believe that one had a duty to do one's modest best to participate? Are there a lot of elections at sometimes inconvenient times within a short space of time? Is there a genuine problem deciding between the only candidates who might win on either grand moral or national policy grounds or even simple self interest? Is it assumed only one candidate can possibly win the seat? That last is one of the few arguments for proportional representatiion because a dutiful voter who has a preference for one party will make his infinitesimal contribution by voting).

    Even Australia with its 80 to 90+ per cent turnouts to vote in sometimes complicated elections with mixed Alternative Vote/Preferential and proportional representation for the different houses of parliament (and not much "informal" voting as protest) exhibits the growing weaknesses of democracies. That is, as I propose to write in another comment, the corruption of respect for the oligarchs (whether traditional upper and upper middle classes or labour bosses), the replacement of the class that went into politics as a duty by professiinal calculating careerists – plus opportunistic extremists – and the growth of a sense of entitlement which ptobably adds up by now to 150 per cent of all that is or can be. Thanks to China's huge appetite for Australian resources and products Australian democracy can stagger on with scope even for absurd fantasies e.g. about Australia's proper level of masochism in rejecting coal for energy when it can make absolutely no difference to Australia – except to make it poorer.

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment July 1, 2017 at 12:49 am GMT

    @unpc downunder Your version of history differs from mine. 1832 and even 1867 in the UK still built in some protection from the unpropertied lower orders (and 100 per cent from women – publicly anyway) but Australian colonial suffrage was typically the alarming manhood suffrage with only property qualification for some upper house elections as a break on the masses' savage expropriatory instincts – not too much to be feared amongst ambitious colonial strivers in fact. The general assumption that everyone with an IQ of 100 and a degree in Fashionable Jargon-ridden Muddled Thinking is as worth listening to as anyone from the tradional educated bougeois or landed elite has inevitably put politics into the hands of the ruthless, often arriviste careerists.

    Please think again about your last par. which I suggest is a prescription for (even worse) disaster. The idea of getting rid of political parties (how?) is as unrealistic as having the bored populace vote directly for membership of the executive government who, in parliamentary systems at least, have to command legislative majorities to be effective. And why do you think responsiveness to those few who join political parties is likely to benefit the wider public when you consider what has been wrought in the UK Labour Party by election of the leader by a flood of new young members wlling to pay Ł3 to join!! I believe the Tories have also moved in that idiotic direction. Imagine even the comparatively simple business of making motor cars being headed by a CEO who had campaigned for votes amingst all workers who had been employed for more than 4 weeks with promises of squeezing shareholders and doubling wages.

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment July 1, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT

    @jilles dykstra Your observation seems to depend for its truth on people (and you?) seeing politics and national life as a zero sum game with no chance of increase in wealth or other good things of life. That seems to be a logical attitude only in countries which sre still Malthusian like say Niger with its TFF of 7! Is that a tealistic assessment of 2017 South America, or most of it?

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment July 1, 2017 at 1:21 am GMT

    @jilles dykstra We see in any country with a district voting system how democracy does not function: USA, GB and France.
    The Dutch equal representation system is far superior, the present difficulties of forming a government reflect the deep divisions in Dutch society.
    These deep divisions should be clear anywhere, now that the struggle between globalisation and nationalism is in full swing. I had in mind your comment when writing part of my last par in #17 which I won't repeat.

    But allow me to expŕess astonishment at the idea that a truly sovereign nation benefits from an electoral system which so represents irreconcilable differences in society that a government cannot be formed. The Netherlands comfortable position as a minor feature of the EU makes it perhaps less of a problem than, at least potentially, it is for Israel. Whenever Israel handles anything really stupidly it is a good bet that it is during wrangling over putting together a majority government.

    Another problem with PR well illustrated by Israel that you don't mention is that citizens have no local member who has to show that he cares about his constituents' concerns and actually gets to know about them. That, for the average citizen has to be a really important matter. In Australia we have just seen a pretty dodgy Chinese government aligned businessman/ donor to the New South Wales Labor Party rewarded with nomination to a winnable place in the PR election of the Senate. There is no way he would be put forward to win votes in a local electorate of thousands of voters rather than millions.

    [Jun 30, 2017] The present empty suit is proof that the POTU$ really doesnt matter

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, but why are liberals so outraged at Trump? Is it only because they don't like his manners..his vulgarity? I really don't get it. All these spineless, gutless wonders in world capitals going on about what an evil guy Trump is etc. ..."
    "... I don't get where the hysteria is coming from because Trump is hardly uniquely evil...he's just more direct and vulgar Oh the horror! ..."
    Jun 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Temporarily Sane | Jun 29, 2017 8:02:38 PM | 58 Temporarily Sane | Jun 29, 2017 8:18:54 PM | 59

    @57 Ben
    The present "empty suit", is proof, IMO, that the POTU$ really doesn't matter. The ship of state is controlled by a corporate cabal, that pursues the business interests of the empire,( U$A/NATO) regardless of who the POTUS is. Enriching the business elites globally, is the agenda. Join the club, or face destruction.

    Yes, but why are liberals so outraged at Trump? Is it only because they don't like his manners..his vulgarity? I really don't get it. All these spineless, gutless wonders in world capitals going on about what an evil guy Trump is etc. but when he says "jump!" they say "how high?" Even American "opponents" of Trump really only get upset at his rhetoric and his "Muslim ban" (killing Muslims is fine though, encouraged even). And the border wall of course.

    But Obama was known as the "deporter in chief" and there is already a 700-mile fence along the U.S. - Mexico border.

    I don't get where the hysteria is coming from because Trump is hardly uniquely evil...he's just more direct and vulgar Oh the horror! Can it be they are afraid people will be more alert to slick (or otherwise) politicians trying to pull the wool over their eyes after four or eight years of Trump's nonsense?

    Somebody help me out here...

    DemiJohn | Jun 29, 2017 9:19:34 PM | 60
    V. Arnold quotes : "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. "
    Besides the point but my favorite variant is : "Power corrupts, absolute power is even better".

    [Jun 30, 2017] The Russians are coming narrative is an attempt to reassert the control by neoliberal elite after Trump election

    Notable quotes:
    "... i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards? ..."
    Jun 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jfl | Jun 29, 2017 9:35:53 PM | 62

    @59 ts

    i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards?

    so 'the Russians are coming!' anything to reassert a narrative it can control.

    [Jun 30, 2017] Why The Elites Hate Putin by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
    "... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
    "... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
    "... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
    "... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
    "... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
    "... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
    "... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
    "... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
    "... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
    Jun 30, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    On Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews (Part III)

    by Justin Raimondo Posted on June 30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media, and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling, one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.

    The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation: "Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin: Well, almost nothing."

    Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:

    "Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."

    This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:

    "It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."

    So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic.

    Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference, I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters "should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more perceptive progressives are saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."

    This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:

    "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people."

    To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:

    Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of " libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that the Ukraine snipers who shot at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a number of other places." Putin has evidence of Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier. And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."

    And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way. Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that this is indeed the case .

    There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies it: "I'm a capitalist!"

    There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove," the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:

    "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."

    To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.

    Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:

    "You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone. I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace and consciousness to the world."

    Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such.

    And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.

    What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything to stop it. But why?

    There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues. Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason. Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class, and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.

    Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.

    This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.

    In his famous essay, " The End of History ," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle to the globalist project.

    That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism" of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism. Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would demonize him and his country for this very reason.

    As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.

    Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is here , and the second part is here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film – here .

    NOTES IN THE MARGIN

    You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

    I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

    You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

    Read more by Justin Raimondo Vladimir Putin: A Suitor Spurned – June 27th, 2017 Who Tried to Kill Putin – Five Times? – June 25th, 2017 A Brief Missive – June 22nd, 2017 Our Rush to War in Syria – June 20th, 2017 Hodgkinson's Disease: Politics and Paranoia in the Age of Trump – June 18th, 2017

    [Jun 28, 2017] The Hoarding of the American Dream by Annie Lowrey

    That's about the class of beneficiaries from neoliberalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Dream Hoarders ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

    In a new book, a Brookings scholar argues that the upper-middle class has enriched itself and harmed economic mobility.

    There's a certain type of financial confessional that has had a way of going viral in the post-recession era. The University of Chicago law professor complaining his family was barely keeping their heads above water on $250,000 a year . This hypothetical family of three in San Francisco making $200,000, enjoying vacations to Maui, and living hand-to-mouth. This real New York couple making six figures and merely " scraping by ."

    In all of these viral posts, denizens of the upper-middle class were attempting to make the case for their middle class-ness. Taxes are expensive. Cities are expensive. Tuition is expensive. Children are expensive. Travel is expensive. Tens of thousands of dollars a month evaporate like cold champagne spilled on a hot lanai, they argue. And the 20 percent are not the one percent.

    A great, short book by Richard V. Reeves of the Brookings Institution helps to flesh out why these stories provoke such rage. In Dream Hoarders , released this week, Reeves agrees that the 20 percent are not the one percent: The higher you go up the income or wealth distribution, the bigger the gains made in the past three or four decades. Still, the top quintile of earners-those making more than roughly $112,000 a year-have been big beneficiaries of the country's growth. To make matters worse, this group of Americans engages in a variety of practices that don't just help their families, but harm the other 80 percent of Americans.

    "I am not suggesting that the top one percent should be left alone. They need to pay more tax, perhaps much more," Reeves writes. "But if we are serious about narrowing the gap between 'the rich' and everybody else, we need a broader conception of what it means to be rich."

    The book traces the way that the upper-middle class has pulled away from the middle class and the poor on five dimensions: income and wealth, educational attainment, family structure, geography, and health and longevity. The top 20 percent of earners might not have seen the kinds of income gains made by the top one percent and America's billionaires. Still, their wage and investment increases have proven sizable. They dominate the country's top colleges, sequester themselves in wealthy neighborhoods with excellent public schools and public services, and enjoy healthy bodies and long lives. "It would be an exaggeration to say that the upper-middle class is full of gluten-avoiding, normal-BMI joggers who are only marginally more likely to smoke a cigarette than to hit their children," Reeves writes. "But it would be just that-an exaggeration, not a fiction."

    They then pass those advantages onto their children, with parents placing a "glass floor" under their kids. They ensure they grow up in nice zip codes, provide social connections that make a difference when entering the labor force, help with internships, aid with tuition and home-buying, and schmooze with college admissions officers. All the while, they support policies and practices that protect their economic position and prevent poorer kids from climbing the income ladder: legacy admissions, the preferential tax treatment of investment income, 529 college savings plans, exclusionary zoning, occupational licensing, and restrictions on the immigration of white-collar professionals.

    As a result, America is becoming a class-based society, more like fin-de-sičcle England than most would care to admit, Reeves argues. Higher income kids stay up at the sticky top of the income distribution. Lower income kids stay down at the bottom. The one percent have well and truly trounced the 99 percent, but the 20 percent have done their part to immiserate the 80 percent, as well-an arguably more relevant but less recognized class distinction.

    Why more relevant? In part because the 20 percent are so much bigger than the one percent. If you are going to raise a considerable amount of new income-tax revenue to finance social programs, as many Democrats want to do, dinging the top one percent won't cut it: They are a lot richer, but a lot fewer in number. And if you are going to provide more opportunities in good neighborhoods, public schools, colleges, internship programs, and labor markets to lower-income families, it is the 20 percent that are going to have to give something up.

    Reeves offers a host of policy changes that might make a considerable difference: better access to contraception, increasing building in cities and suburbs, barring legacy admissions to colleges, curbing tax expenditures that benefit families with big homes and capital gains. Still, given the scale of the problem, I wondered whether other, bigger solutions might be necessary as well: a universal child allowance to reduce the poverty rate among kids, as the Century Foundation has proposed , say, or baby bonds to help eliminate the black-white wealth gap fostered by decades of racist and exclusionary government policy, as Darrick Hamilton has suggested. (So often, the upper-middle class insulating and enriching itself at the expense of the working class has meant white families doing so at the expense of black families-a point I thought underplayed in Reeves' telling.)

    Yet, as Reeves notes, "sensible policy is not always easy politics." Expanding opportunity and improving fairness would require the upper-middle class to vote for higher taxes, to let others move in, and to share in the wealth. Prying Harvard admission letters and the mortgage interest deductions out of the hands of bureaucrats in Bethesda, sales executives in Minnetonka, and lawyers in Louisville is not going to be easy.

    Members of the upper-middle class, as those viral stories show and Reeves writes, love to think of themselves as members of the middle class, not as the rich. They love to think of themselves as hard workers who played fair and won what they deserved, rather than as people who were born on third and think they hit a triple. They hate to hear that the government policies they support as sensible might be torching social mobility and entrenching an elite. That elite is them.

    [Jun 27, 2017] How Israel Manages Its Message

    economistsview.typepad.com

    Those of us who are highly critical of Israel's ability to manipulate U.S. foreign policy frequently note how sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance. Given that it is unlikely that large numbers of visitors to the sites read the offending piece more-or-less simultaneously, react similarly to its content, and then go on to express their disgust in very similar language, many of us have come to the conclusion that the Israeli government or some of the groups dedicated to advancing Israeli interests turn loose supporters who are dedicated to combating and refuting anything and everything that casts Israel in a negative light.

    The fact is that Israel is extremely active in an enterprise that falls in the gray area between covert operations and overt governmental activity. Many governments seek to respond to negative commentary in the media, but they normally do it openly with an ambassador or press officer countering criticism by sending in a letter, writing an op-ed, or appearing on a talk show. Such activity is generally described as public diplomacy when it is done openly by a recognized government official and the information itself is both plausible and verifiable, at least within reasonable limits. Israel does indeed do that, but it also engages in other activities that are not so transparent and which are aimed at spreading false information.

    When an intelligence organization seeks to influence opinion by creating and deliberately circulating "false news," it is referred to as a "disinformation operation."

    But Israel has refined the art of something that expands upon that, what might be referred to more accurately as "perception management" or "influence operations" in which it only very rarely shows its hand overtly, in many cases paying students as part-time bloggers or exploiting diaspora Jews as volunteers to get its message out. The practice is so systemic, involving recruitment, training, Foreign Ministry-prepared information sheets, and internet alerts to potential targets, that it is frequently described by its Hebrew name, hasbara, which means literally "public explanation." It is essentially an internet-focused "information war" that parallels and supports the military action whenever Israel enters into conflict with any of its neighbors or seeks to influence public opinion in the United States and Europe.

    ... ... ...

    The Israeli Foreign Ministry has sent a letter out to a number of pro-Israel organizations emphasizing the "importance of the internet as the new battleground for Israel's image." Haaretz reported in 2013 how Prime Minister Netanyahu's office collaborated with the National Union of Israeli Students to establish "covert units" at the seven national universities to be structured in a "semi-military" fashion and organized in situation rooms. Students are paid as much as $2,000 monthly to work the online targets.

    The serious collaboration between government and volunteers actually began with Operation Cast Lead in early 2009, an incursion into Gaza that killed more than 1,800 Palestinians, when the Foreign Ministry pulled together a group of mostly young computer savvy soldiers supplemented by students both overseas and within Israel to post a number of government-crafted responses to international criticism.

    Many of the initial volunteers worked through a website giyus.org (an acronym for Give Israel Your United Support). The website included a desktop tool called Megaphone that provided daily updates on articles appearing on the internet that had to be challenged or attacked. There were once believed to be 50,000 activists receiving the now-inactive Megaphone's alerts.

    There have also been reports about a pro-Israel American group called Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) preparing to enter its own version of developments in the Middle East on the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia. E-mails from CAMERA reveal that the group sought volunteers in 2008 to edit material on Wikipedia "to help us keep Israel-related entries from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors," while also recommending that articles on the Middle East be avoided initially by supporters so as not to arouse suspicions about their motives. Volunteers were also advised to use false names that did not hint at any Israeli or Jewish connection and to avoid any references to being organized by CAMERA. Fifty volunteers reportedly were actively engaged in the program when it was exposed in the media and the program was put on hold.

    CAMERA is an Internal Revenue Service-approved 501(c)(3) organization, which means that contributions to it are tax exempt. Such exemptions are granted to organizations that are either charitable or educational in nature and they normally preclude any involvement in partisan political activity. As CAMERA would not appear to qualify as a charity, it is to be presumed that its application for special tax status stressed that it is educational. Whether its involvement in "un-tainting" Wikipedia truly falls within that definition might well be debated, particularly as it appears to have been carried out in semi-clandestine fashion. CAMERA might well also be considered to be a good candidate for registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), as its activity is uniquely focused on promoting the perceived interests of a foreign government.

    The use of Israel's universities as propaganda mills by the government also raises other significant issues. The growing BDS movement has included some Israeli universities as targets because of their alleged involvement with the government in the occupation of the West Bank. That the universities are also involved in possible government-sponsored information operations might be an additional convincing argument that BDS supporters might use to justify blacklisting at least some Israeli academic institutions.

    Every government is engaged in selling a product, which is its own self-justifying view of what it does and how it does it. But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which receives more than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people working for a foreign government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not. What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s.

    That Israel can continue to reap huge amounts of aid and political cover from Washington while it is actively working to make sure that Americans are poorly informed about the Middle East reveals more than anything the corruption of our political class and media, both of which appear to be ready to sell out for thirty shekels to anyone with the cash in hand. Time to drain the swamp, indeed.

    exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 4:47 am GMT

    This is documented long-term foreign influence which has reached treason levels in the past, for instance at the time the USS Liberty was sunk in June, 1967. This can be contrasted with the phony Russia accusations levelled by many of the same people whose first loyalty is to the Israeli state rather than to the yankee imperium employing them. I don't see this ending well.

    Wally Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT

    Tip of the iceberg:

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    "Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security"

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

    The Zionist attempt to control language.
    The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY

    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf

    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

    "Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo

    "Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA"
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg

    "IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology"
    Read more: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Mark Green Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 6:03 am GMT

    Israel's global news penetration (via hasbara) and other disinformation strategies are routine. Diabolical, but routine.

    The Zionist state's various tricks and manipulations are legendary and ruthless. They function as a backdoor attack on intellectual liberty as well as open political discourse. They are anti-democratic.

    Thus, even 'freedom of expression' in America is under constant Israeli pressure and surveillance. No stone goes unturned.

    This is why Holocaust 'education' is ubiquitous and, when possible, mandatory. If the stories fail, inject guilt. It's an unscrupulous strategy that is working.

    Meanwhile, Zionist myths rain down endlessly via American TV and throughout American mass media. Deep Zionist victimology has penetrated even US public schools. Hasbara is strategic. It is unrelenting. Ironically, it represents the tribal interest of a foreign power. Do Americans live under soft occupation? It increasingly looks that way.

    This explains why Jewish suffering, Jewish innocence, and Jewish victimology are now compulsory subjects in American life–from schools to children's TV, to higher education and adult cinema. 'Dominare the message'.

    On the other hand, Israel's commitment to segregation between Jews and gentiles is quietly steadfast. "Unshakable'. This head-scratching phenomena has been obscured by the Fake News meme involving America's 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. Yet it is an absolute ruse. No such heritage exists. These are Zionist-lead political movements and Zionist headlines. They tread on the thin, manufactured ice. Theydo not exist organically.

    Christ's teachings were in fact a break from Judaism. Christ said as much. Christianity is an Open Admissions theology that stresses universal ethics that are non-racial. On the other hand, Israel is tribal, racial and exclusionary. This wouldn't be so repulsive if not for Israel's vociferous (and insincere) support for 'equality' and its pious contempt for 'white nationalism'.

    Jewish racism is commanded by God. And Israel's ethical basis is polluted by nepotism, 'chosenness' and racial favoritism under God. It is a collection of myths and yarns that drip with tribal supremacism.

    It's worth remembering also that Jews in Israel have a distinct word for their version of 'Apartheid'. It is 'Hafrada', which means 'separation' in Hebrew. Ever heard of it? Of course not! Hasbara operatives and their cousins in US news media make sure of that.

    Sadly, we Americans live under soft occupation.

    Significantly, few non-Jews have ever heard of 'hafrada'. But everyone has heard of 'Apartheid'.
    Gee. How come?

    We can thank the legions of young Israeli activists (and their elders) for this deliberate omission and assorted side shows. Control speech. Control thought.

    Make no mistake about it: Israel is a racial supremacist state. Segregation is a core Zionist value. Jewish exceptionalism is their paramount goal. America is a useful, but temporary, ally. This is the nature of the 'special relationship.'

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 6:56 am GMT

    Zionists never foresaw that having an own state would demonstrate what jews are capable of. In 1948, thanks to the persecutions of the jews during WWII, Israel had a lot of sympathy in the world. Nowadays, with no solution anywhere in sight for the Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed in 1948, in Germany a Secretary for, against, Antisemitism seems necessary.

    Germany debates if criticism of Israel, antizionism, is he same as antisemitism. Norman Finkelstein and Ilian Pappe recently were not allowed to speak in Germany. Indeed Israel is great in propaganda, but the effects are less and less.

    Israel has but one 'friend', the USA, and how sincere this friendship is is more and more debatable. Mobilising jews to write on fora, in many languages, any time there have been Israeli atrocities, may have the opposite effect. Anyone familiar with these fora notices how these propagandists pop up, and disappear after some time. What they are paid even is known, four or five dollars per message. It looks like 'you can fool all people some time, some people all the time, but not all the people all the time', still is true.

    Ronald Thomas West Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 7:27 am GMT

    "What is occurring is essentially an intelligence operation directed against the United States, something that the CIA would have run back in the 1970s and 1980s"

    Hi Phil

    Jesse Ventura would have us believe the CIA is as busy as it ever had been, when it comes to running operations against the American people. I agree with Jesse.

    Meanwhile, here's a collection of links I'd assembled some time back, includes American military psyops (esp Air Force) along the lines of hasbara (who're also included)

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/18/military-sock-puppets-nsa-trolls-cia-shills/

    ^

    Tha Philosopher Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 9:17 am GMT

    Wally,

    The CIA and NSA are essentially the jewish elite secret police. They align exactly with Mossad. Hence 9-11. Read the Devil's Chessboard by Stephen Talbot. We've previoulsy lived under a gentile plutocracy since the assasination of JFK.

    But something happened since as Zion rose to prominence. The coup against Nixon by the Deep State is a part of the puzzle. Allen Welsh Dulles groomed Nixon. So his loyalists would never have removed him. My hunch is that Nixon's fall to the Washington Post, consummate deep state pillar, is the key to understanding the later 20th century and our current 'occupation'. Its a pity nobody could ask David Rockefeller in candour how his group had lost control or merged with the new Zionists.

    ... ... ...

    mcohen Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT

    here it is folks in all its glory.enjoy.just the plain truth

    https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT

    sites that permit comments on our articles are almost immediately inundated with hostile postings that are remarkably similar in both tone and substance.

    Speaking of substance, they typically lack any of it. They usually resort to smarmy personal attacks as well as scatological foolishness and crass bragging. Some resort to juvenile pseudo-intellectual banter that's obviously intended to intimidate or humiliate, while another favorite tactic seems to be off topic trash that's also supposed to impress the rest of us somehow.

    Nevertheless, I encourage the trolls to keep it up and leave them to figure out why.

    But the largely clandestine Israeli effort to influence American opinion is unique in that it comes from a country which receives more than $3 billion annually from the U.S. taxpayer. We Americans are therefore paying to be propagandized by people working for a foreign government who often pretend to be our fellow citizens but are not.

    Yeah, that really burns.

    lavoisier Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT

    Ideas have power. Hence the desire to control ideas. To control minds.

    I have always thought that the Bolsheviks were Masters at thought control. The ultimate control freaks.

    But why such comfort with lies and deception? Why not be open to the free exchange of ideas?

    Without openness to ideas civilization stagnates as talent is buried.

    This IS scary.

    Jason Liu Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT

    Also interesting is how they manage to do this without widespread condemnation and/or suspicion. It's like people know about it, but the Israelis create an environment where people don't quite care. Contrast that to the wumao, China's paid commenters, who arouse widespread suspicion and constant accusations of shilling.

    So Israel must have gone one step further. They manage their image with propagandists, but they also manage the image of the propagandist as well.

    annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra "Zionists never foresaw that having an own state would demonstrate what jews are capable of."

    But the truth is coming out: " Selected Articles: Criminal Israel Under the Spotlight" http://www.globalresearch.ca/selected-articles-criminal-israel-under-the-spotlight/5596278

    The articles show American taxpayers' money in action.

    Again, what was the aftermath of 9/11 about – fighting against Al Qaeda? If yes, then why should not Israel be designated as a terrorist state supporting Al Qaeda, the US sworn enemy? It seems that Al Qaeda is "good guys" nowadays because they help to farther the Eretz Israel project

    The Israel-occupied US government is proverbially dancing on the graves of 9/11 victims: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria"

    Bragadocious Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

    CAMERA is as old as the hills. I remember when I subscribed to the Atlantic back in the 80s this mangy outfit would run little 2×3 inch print ads. I always wondered what the fuss was about; I mean, who could be against accurate reporting in the ME? Then it became clear. And they most certainly should be subjected to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as should many others, including NY-based Irish Central (a propaganda sheet for the Paddy open borders crowd).

    ISmellBagels Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT

    They not only use American-sounding names, but hilariously patriotic posting handles, like Patriot, KeepAmericaSafe, TrueAmerican, etc.

    HAL 9000 Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT

    By this time, pretty much everyone does this. Israel might be the biggest or most extensive, but anyone engaged in politics or related activities does pretty much the same thing.

    Any major political party now does this. For example, I was relatively sure the Democrats did this only a couple of weeks back. AG Sessions was due to testify in a major hearing. It seemed to me that the Democrats both recruited a Senator to hammer a particular theme, which was to put Sessions in a spot where he had to refuse to answer questions for perfectly legal reasons, and a small army of internet activists, paid trolls, or bots was mobilized to push memes on the internet on this topic.

    By this time, I regard a political party that does not do this as being incompetent.

    Corporations also do this. They call it 'brand protection' or 'guerrilla marketing'. Anyone with a little bit of money can find firms that offer this as a service. What it costs to buy this service would seem expensive to ordinary citizens, but given the amount of money in play, the cost of a few hundred thousand to a 'consultant' firm is chicken feed. You don't even need to recruit humans to do it. After all, a fake name and a fake email address can easily be connected to a computer generated fake message.

    A website I go to for news often has headlines like "Twitter explodes to .". I pretty much ignore these as its predictable and obvious that this can be pre-arranged and manipulated.

    The interesting issue I saw raised not too long ago let to the possibility that AI's might manipulate this in the future. At some point, we'd have to question if there is even a human entity behind this, or is it just an AI that managing our perception towards itself or other AIs.

    There's an old saying that all politics is local. We might actually have to go back to talking to each other face to face.

    moi Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT

    Good article, but fails to mention that the hasbara would not work without Jewish control of "our" media/entertainment (NYT, WaPo, Google, Facebook, Hollywood, TV, etc.) industry, not to mention the financial sector and disproportionate representation of Jews in Congress. Sorry, but those are facts.

    annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra More on Syria and the upcoming false flag:
    "White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria" http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/white-house-says-it-will-fake-chemical-weapon-attacks-in-syria.html#comments

    ISmellBagels Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

    @HAL 9000 Israel is the only country that has control of our congress, our media and the control of the dumb masses to keep driving the US to ruin. The "everyone does this" line is not much of a response.

    DaveE Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

    @DanCT You bring up an important point.

    Hasbara trolls and websites which publish them are an important measure of true public opinion for the zionists. The Lobby has its own internal opinion polls which are never shared, certainly not in the crap served up to us by Zogby, Reuters and Pew, etc. etc. etc.

    I suspect that this database is far more comprehensive than commonly known, probably going as far as linking an "anti_Semite" rating to individual commenters.

    I'm probably in the top 10%, I'm proud to say.

    Chu Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

    @Wally The mooch fest never ends, unless there's a growing under-current to cut the tentacles. And with cooperative efforts like Technion/Cornell partnering, they are anchoring themselves to the US indefinitely – so if they fail, they'll pull the US down with them.

    They brought Zionist terror to the Middle East, but the victim shtick, via hollywood, has caused the complacent TV-watchers to be lulled into a false narrative, and who never challenge what a corrupt collective of occupiers, and land swindlers they are.

    A review of 'Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto' – by Gilad Atzmon

    https://platosguns.com/2017/06/24/athens-versus-jerusalem/

    annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 27, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

    How Israel manages its messages? – Via the presstituting MSM like Washington Post: http://www.moonofalabama.org

    "WaPo has a 8,300 word weekend opus on how Obama failed to react to CIA director Brennan's claims that Putin himself ordered to hack the U.S. election.

    Note:

    Reading that piece it becomes clear (but is never said) that the sole source for that August 2016 Brennan claim of "Russian hacking" is the absurd Steele dossier some ex-MI6 dude created for too much money as opposition research against Trump . The only other "evidence" for "Russian hacking" is the Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack". Crowdstrike has a Ukrainian nationalist agenda, was hired by the DNC , had to retract other "Russian hacking" claims and no one else was allowed to take a look at the DNC servers. Said differently: The whole "Russian hacking" claims are solely based on "evidence" of two fake reports."

    The Crowdstrike' report was concocted under command of Dmitri Alperovitch, a rabid Russophobe of Jewish ethnicity, who is also an "expert" at Atlantic Council, where he joins other "experts" like Eliot Higgins. Higgins was nicely dressed recently by the honorable C0l. Pat Lang who wrote about Higgins: " an uneducated, inexperienced guy with an opinion The fact that this gentlemen is treated as a credible source is further proof of the insanity that has taken over the public debate. He knows nothing other than what he has read. He has not been through live agent training at Fort McClellan (I have). He has no scientific background in the subject matter and no experience (other than playing video games) with actual chemical weapons (Ted Postol, who has written extensively on the subject, does have actual scientific and military expertise on the topic). Higgins knows nothing of the military doctrine for employing such weapons. He knows nothing of the process and procedures required for a military unit to safely handle, load, activate and deploy such weapons."

    To illustrate the power of the Lobby, it is educational to know that Higgins is also a "Visiting Research Associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS), Department of War Studies, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS," - kidding you not. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/visiting/higgins.aspx

    [Jun 27, 2017] MoA - White House Says It Will Fake Chemical Weapon Attack In Syria

    Looks like after Hersh story was published trump decided to double down.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it: ..."
    "... Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.) ..."
    "... Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation. ..."
    "... Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses. ..."
    "... i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'. ..."
    "... It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'. ..."
    "... What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance. ..."
    "... Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent. ..."
    "... I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative. ..."
    "... Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it. ..."
    "... If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice. ..."
    "... The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed. ..."
    "... After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving! ..."
    "... This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true. ..."
    "... I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited. ..."
    "... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign. ..."
    "... It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures. ..."
    "... Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen. ..."
    "... thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed... ..."
    Jun 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly be to its disadvantage. The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which will be blamed on the Syrian government.

    In August 2013 Syria invited inspectors of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to investigate chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian army. As soon as the inspectors arrived in Damascus a "chemical attack" was staged in Ghouta near Damascus. Lots of Jihadist video coverage of killed children was published and the "western" media blamed the incident on the Syrian government. It never explained why targeting a militarily irrelevant area with chemical weapons at the same time as inspectors arrived would have been a rational decision for a Syrian government that was just regaining control and international standing.

    The "attack" was clearly staged by the opposition of the Syrian government and its foreign supporters. The Obama administration had planned to use it to launch U.S. attacks on the Syrian government but refrained from this when Russia arranged to remove Syria's strategic chemical weapons, aimed at Israel, instead.

    In early 2017 the new U.S. president Trump made positive comments about the Syrian government. Assad can stay, he said. The Syrian military and its allies had gained the upper hand and were victorious on all fronts. Two days later another "chemical attack" was staged in the al-Qaeda held town of Khan Sheikhun. Lots of Jihadi video coverage of killed children, likely prepared in advance, was spilled onto the "western" public. U.S. intelligence knew that no chemical attack by the Syrian government had taken place. But the Trump administration used the incident to launch a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian military airport. The neoconservatives were delighted. They finally had Trump where they wanted him. The media coverage changed from damming Trump for his alleged "Russian connections" to lauding his decisiveness in response to the faked attack.

    Late May the new French president Macron ostensibly changed his position towards the Syrian government. The hostile position of France (and other EU countries) against the Syrian president Assad that had been eminent throughout the last six years changed on a dime :

    Macron said that on Syria: "My profound conviction is that we need a political and diplomatic roadmap. We won't solve the question only with military force. That is a collective error we have made. The real change I've made on this question, is that I haven't said the deposing of Bashar al-Assad is a prerequisite for everything. Because no one has introduced me to his legitimate successor!

    But Macron also added:

    "I have red lines on chemical weapons and humanitarian corridors. I said it very clearly to Vladimir Putin. I will be uncompromising on that. So the use of chemical weapons will be met with a response, and even if France acts alone."

    This immediately set off my warning lights:

    Moon of Alabama @MoonofA - 4:28 PM - 29 May 2017
    You like fakes? Tune in to Macron announcing the next False Flag chemical weapon attack in Syria.

    Like all "red lines" this one Macron set was an invitation to the Takfiris to launch more fake incidents. Others had a similar reaction to Macron's (fake) turnaround.

    The end of the war on Syria is in sight . One can start to tabulate the winners and losers . The U.S. military conceded that it had lost the race to occupy south-east Syria. All these turns in favor of Syria show that the war is practically won unless some of the outside sponsors of the Takfiri "rebels" again escalate.

    Such an escalation is now happening. The White House claims to have information that the Syrian government is preparing a chemical weapon attack to kill "innocent children":

    In an ominous statement issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation , Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the U.S. had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children."

    He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack that killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."

    Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements said they were caught completely off guard by the warning, which didn't appear to be discussed in advance with other national security agencies. Typically, the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies would all be consulted before the White House issued a declaration sure to ricochet across foreign capitals.

    The White House claim is of course nonsense and not supported by any evidence or logic at all. No one but the White House, not the State Department nor the Defense Department, seems to be informed about this (though that could be a ruse):

    Five US defense officials said they did not know where the potential chemical attack would come from and were unaware the White House was planning a statement.

    The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it:

    Nikki Haley‏ @nikkihaley - 2:36 AM - 27 Jun 2017
    Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.

    A U.S. bomb attack on an Islamic State used building in Mayadin, Syria, just killed 57 prisoners of the Islamic State. Will Nikki Halley hold the Syrian government responsible for this?

    Take note of Trump's schedule today:

    Laura Rozen‏ @lrozen 8:56 AM - 27 Jun 2017

    Trump has call with France's Macron first thing this morning, before intel brief. Then meeting w Nat. Sec. adviser McMaster

    Intense U.S. military reconnaissance takes place along the Syrian coast. The UK Defense Minister just announced that his government is "in full agreement" with any U.S. "retaliation" for a chemical attack in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis announced that the U.S. will continue to arm its Kurdish proxies in Syria even after ISIS is defeated.

    During the last three days Al-Qaeda attacks on Syrian army position near the Israeli occupied Golan heights were supported by Israeli air attacks .

    This all is clearly a coordinated operation by the "western" supporters of the Takfiris in Syria. Their aim is to prevent the victory of Syria and its allies. The U.S. wants to split up the country.

    The announced fake "chemical attack" and the "retaliation" it is supposed to justify will likely happen in the south-west of Syria around Deraa where all recent attempts by Israel and the U.S. supported Takfiris to dislodge the Syrian government forces have failed. The provocation, now prepared and announced by Macron and the White House and supported by the UK, is probably planned to happen shortly before or during the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg:

    President Trump and members of his administration are requesting a full bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany next month.

    ...

    While some administration officials have pressed for a quick "pull-aside" meeting at the Group of 20 summit or lower officials talking privately instead of the heads of state, Trump wants an event that includes the media and time for work sessions, according to one government official.

    Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.)

    Syria insists that its has no chemical weapons nor any intention to use any indiscriminate weapon. Russia warns of any further military aggression and calls such U.S. threats unacceptable .

    Posted by b on June 27, 2017 at 07:49 AM | Permalink

    Dario | Jun 27, 2017 7:56:49 AM | 1
    Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation.

    just impressions, ideas, ideas...

    Anon | Jun 27, 2017 8:01:03 AM | 2
    Intresting b,- on the France connection, perhaps France are the ones feeding the false info to bomb Syria, the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support? Anyway, check EU, Western nations, Media these days and see the ugly propaganda being played out, once again the west plan, threat with illegal wars and their media is right there to help them.

    Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know.

    Because, after Syria, Russia like Iran and North Korea will also sooner or later be bombed. Be sure about that. These are sick lunatics ruling the American military.
    Remember who rule America these days, its not Trump:

    Bannon: Trump's strategy is 'let the warfighters fight the war'

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/339301-bannon-trumps-strategy-is-let-the-warfighters-fight-the-war

    Laguerre | Jun 27, 2017 8:15:03 AM | 3
    the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support
    Really? He's just won the elections massively. What sort of support does he need?
    R Winner | Jun 27, 2017 8:17:46 AM | 4
    The US Regime is obviously in panic mode. The SAA is rapidly advancing on three fronts:

    1. Raqqa - The SAA is quickly moving around the hapless Kurds and moving to the area south of Raqqa. Ensuring IS is unable to execute their agreement with the US Regime to evacuate towards Deir ez-Zur.

    2. Deir ez-Zur - Huge numbers of SAA are quickly approaching the defenders in Deir ez-Zur. Once Deir ez-Zur is secure, the SAA will move north to link up with the SAA forces in al Hasakah.

    3. al Bukamal - The SAA and Iraq PMU are working as a unified force on both sides of the border and are preparing to surround the border city.

    What this means is:

    1. The US Regime partion dreams are dead. There is no viable Kurdish 'state' other than a bunch of clowns pretending to be a new 'government' in Raqqa.
    2. The Iraq PMU are increasingly working side by side with the SAA. Any attack by the US Regime puts their bases in Iraq open to attack.
    3. The absurd threats from Saudi Arabia towards Qatar now have the various terror groups still alive in Syria attacking each other.
    4. Syria is close to a decisive military victory against the foreign terrorists. Once the SAA secures the bulk of the Eurphrates only Idlib and Daraa remain as security problems.
    5. Every day the SAA advances and IS or terrorist pockets are cleared, more and more troops are freed up and being moved to the major fronts in either Daraa or the Eurphrates.
    6. Turkey and Russia are in complete agreement on preventing any sort of Kurdish state in the north of Syria. Any attempts by the US Regime to establish some sort of giant military base backed by Kurds is going to have to fight Turkey, the SAA, Russia, and quite possibly Iraq.
    7. The success of the de-escalation zone means that the US Regime is greatly hamstrung in coming up with further faked chemical attacks. The only real options now are Idlib and Daraa.

    IS is being wiped out in the eastern Syrian desert by the SAA and in the western desert of Iraq by the PMU. Those giant grey IS areas on battle maps are evaporating and at the same time the entire pretext for the US Regime to be attacking Syria.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 27, 2017 8:23:41 AM | 5
    Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses.

    Now almost three months later the White House is actually staging a roll out of the false flag. Incredible. Legacy media can't raise a ruckus because their complicit in previous false flags.

    Russia on the other hand can't back down this time. To do so would be to invite perpetual rape and plunder by the U.S. and its various clients. Russia needs to make a very clear statement right now -- paratroopers dropped around Deraa -- to prevent the false flag from going forward.

    blues | Jun 27, 2017 8:24:04 AM | 6
    The US military generals got caught with their pants down. They are losing the war -- everything but the wastelands. For the military/intel, losing is FAILURE. They basically get fired. So they will pull any stunt to not "fail". Of course, the Russians are going to make them fail despite all their "valiant" efforts. Trump better wake up and smell the coffee, or he will wake up to a brilliant flash.
    jfl | Jun 27, 2017 8:26:42 AM | 7
    @1 d

    i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'.

    @2 a, 'Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know'

    i think so too, every time. but I've been wrong everytime so far. it's finally occurred to me that there's more going on than what i know about, and that the Russians are dealing with a fuller deck than i am. And that they've spent their lifetimes at this kind of high pressure stuff and have a far better understanding of it all than i do. but don't take my word for it ... look at the results they've gotten.

    It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'.

    Anon | Jun 27, 2017 8:33:44 AM | 8
    Laguerre

    Massivly won? Sleazy Macron won an election where huge part of France didnt even vote not only in the prez. election but in the parliamentary election.
    Or please tell us why this sleazy Macron threat Syria with war all of a sudden? For what reason? This guy is globalist 101% this is what people like himself do to get support.

    This guy for crying out loud just warned some weeks ago that France will respond to a chemical attack! What more proof do you need?

    jfl | Jun 27, 2017 8:48:06 AM | 9
    Mattis: US arms for Syrian Kurds will continue after Raqqa
    U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday that America will continue to provide weapons to Syrian Kurdish fighters after the battle to oust Islamic State militants from Raqqa, Syria, is over.

    Mattis said the de-confliction talks continue and are happening at several military levels, to insure that aircraft and ground forces are safe.

    What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance.

    it's hard to believe the us wehrmacht is in such obvious disarray. if the Russians wait it out, the Americans will defeat themselves in Syria. Looks like in short order, too.

    MadMax2 | Jun 27, 2017 8:59:47 AM | 10
    Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent.
    mls | Jun 27, 2017 9:07:09 AM | 11
    Trump does not need a chemical weapons attack to actually take place in Syria. He may be planning to preempt such an incident. This way there will be no phony White Helmets video footage to dissect. Listen to what the British Defense Minister has to say:
    British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said London would support U.S. action to prevent a chemical weapons attack but that it had not seen the intelligence on which Washington based Monday's statement.
    according to Reuters here
    I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative.

    MadMax2 | Jun 27, 2017 9:11:09 AM | 12

    Moon is precisely right. The implied assumption of WH/intel Junta is that Ivan is coward and will not stand. The implied action is that WH/intel intends attack RuF/Sy?Ir/+ forces. Assumes Iran etc will not stand. Is this an incorrect assumption set? Failure of WH strategy is thus proximate.
    BRF | Jun 27, 2017 9:19:38 AM | 14
    Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it.

    Hersh is again the go to mouth piece on this one for the neo cons. If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice.

    This whole show is a cock and bull offering. The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed.

    So desperate they US neo con brain trust is willing to go to the poison gas well again and again with their 'tell the big lie often' meme....after all it is only the Syrian civilian population and innocent beautiful babies that will have to die this time around again. I'll give the Israelis some credit for at least having the better excuse for their aggression against the Syrian nation and people.

    virgile | Jun 27, 2017 9:24:49 AM | 15
    After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving!
    plantman | Jun 27, 2017 9:26:31 AM | 16
    Mattis is clearly working secretly with the White House on a plan to counter the steady progress of the SAA. He seems strangely unprepared for recent developments on the ground. There is still a good possibility he will try something foolhardy like sending his militia at al Tanf north thru SAA lines to join the fight at Deir Ezzor.
    The SAA probably won't take Raqqa, but will focus on Deir Ezzor which is only 75 miles away.

    Expect the chemical attack to be in the vicinity of deir ezzor.

    Amanita Amanita | Jun 27, 2017 9:33:14 AM | 17
    Surely this Assad prepares killer tomatoes fairytale is a feint...more likely the spark comes from the Balts or the Balks...so much kindling.

    http://app.debka.com/n/article/26116/US-may-preempt-an-Assad-chemical-strike-in-Syria

    virgile | Jun 27, 2017 9:33:52 AM | 18
    The recent series of failures of the US in Syria, together with a shift of Turkey on the side of Bashar al Assad's army and France's u-turn on Bashar Assad necessitated a big noise: The threat of a 'new' chemical attack that would united the "friends of Syria" again.

    Another infantile drama from desperate Pentagon to show the US relevance in the region! France will not buy it and Russia will make sure that false flag wont happen again.

    jfl | Jun 27, 2017 9:34:02 AM | 20
    @15 virgile

    yeah, but they have to pose in their photo-ops themselves. no one else wants to be seen in pictures with them in the imagined future. the rump loves it ... 'larger than life'.

    well, if they shut up now and wait a bit, they can announce that they were successful in preventing the dastardly attack on the babies by 'assad' ...

    on the other hand, they may well have to figure out what to do after al-cia-duh 'surprises' them with some dead babies ... they'll be shocked! never imagined that might happen! wasn't in their copy of the script ... it's all a sit-com to them ...

    Out of Istanbul | Jun 27, 2017 9:54:40 AM | 21
    Looks like Assad is taking a "tour" of Russia's airbase... https://twitter.com/AliHa_97/status/879685253878734849 Looks like the time frame has been moved up dramatically since b's report... AP also running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon being prepared.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 27, 2017 10:12:05 AM | 22
    I've got a quibble with the intro to this post. It should say...

    The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing " another chemical weapon attack".

    "another" is the presumptuous, Hollywood-ish weasel word intended to pre-emptively legitimise the false and unproven Yankee allegations that the Syrian Govt has conducted ANY chemical attacks. In fact, one could go farther and point out the measures taken by the Christian Colonial Clowns to AVOID producing evidence to support their past claims.

    Julian | Jun 27, 2017 10:21:28 AM | 23
    G20 G20 G20. If Putin wants to avoid WW3 he must get the leaders of countries like China, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Korea, who else? to stand up behind him and condemn this rush to war. The time has come for Merkel to make a decision - and it happens to be at her home G20 Summit. Does Mutti have the cojones???
    Alaric | Jun 27, 2017 10:32:35 AM | 24
    I agree with the posters of 15 and 22.

    This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true.

    It's the same tactc he is using regarding Russian interference. He is redirected there as well to Obama. "Why didn't Obama do anything about the leaks."

    That said you can't put anything beyond the empire. SAA, Russia and friends need to be ready.

    exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM | 25
    I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited.

    The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel.

    It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be extremely suspect.

    Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.

    In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray, not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in that direction.

    JaimeInTexas | Jun 27, 2017 10:38:50 AM | 27
    @21

    Hmmm. If the preemptive strike against an alleged chemical attack preparation takes out Assad? Just serendipity, icing on the cake? Any chance that the message is that these uSA has intelligence on Assad's movements?

    x | Jun 27, 2017 10:45:17 AM | 28
    And when this same old gas story loses traction it will be back to 'Barrel Bombs'...

    peter | Jun 27, 2017 11:04:14 AM | 30
    I suppose now that CNN has fired three journalists that Special Council Mueller will give notice to his investigators to pack it in and go home. Yep, nothing to see here folks. Sorry for wasting your time. Fat fucking chance. This cat's on a mission and won't be deterred.

    It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures.

    Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen.

    jfl | Jun 27, 2017 11:27:12 AM | 31
    US has seen chemical weapons activity at Syrian airbase: Pentagon
    The U.S. regime has recently seen chemical weapons activity at the Shay'rat Airbase in the Homs Governorate, the Pentagon claimed, as reported by Matt Lee of the Associated Press.
    this seems pretty whack. the syrians will say hey, come have a look? the us will go and say ... oops, our mistake? what's going on here? i guess it's the pentagon giving the rump a way to climb down? he can say he 'forced' an inspection? or something?
    XLemming | Jun 27, 2017 11:27:39 AM | 32
    @29 HW

    A good start would be hanging all those responsible for war crimes... But until that happens, evil will proceed unabated

    Christian Chuba | Jun 27, 2017 11:44:25 AM | 34
    Since we know that Trump gets his info from his favorite cable TV programs and a select few websites and doesn't use the vast resources of the U.S. Intel community, has anyone found the original source for the new Assad allegation? It would be interesting to see what The Donald is reading nowadays.
    james | Jun 27, 2017 11:49:58 AM | 35
    thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed...

    ditto many comments here..

    @ 22 Hoarsewhisperer.. yeah - 'another' when they haven't verified any previously... more lies and insinuation of responsibility absent any facts... who needs facts when you want to destroy another country?

    @29 quote "If people in the West don't want WW3 they're going to have to do something about the people who bribe, and own, their politicians." but hoarsewhisperer - that is what all these lies and deception are meant to do - keep the people in the west completely ignorant of the facts and reality.. dontcha know that lying to your people in the msm regularly keeps the sheeple quiet and passive? us freaks here at moa are in a real minority..

    @34 chuba - they just make this shit up man... the first source i saw was from yesterday spicer idiot..

    [Jun 26, 2017] Why hurting the poor will hurt the economy

    Crocodile tears of WaPO staff... Who fully supported implementation of Washington consensus that robbed the nations in favor of international companies... this was a new mass scale economic rape of the Western countries and it was especially brutal in xUSSR area.
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    djb : March 11, 2017 at 06:42 AM

    Why hurting the poor will hurt the economy - The Washington Post

    that this topic even needs a special article about it is proof of the sad state of affairs of economics today

    Why trying to help poor countries might actually hurt them - The Washington Post

    Nobel-winning economist Angus Deaton argues against giving aid to poor countries

    It sounds kind of crazy to say that foreign aid often hurts, rather than helps, poor people in poor countries. Yet that is what Angus Deaton, the newest winner of the Nobel Prize in economics , has argued.

    Deaton, an economist at Princeton University who studied poverty in India and South Africa and spent decades working at the World Bank, won his prize for studying how the poor decide to save or spend money. But his ideas about foreign aid are particularly provocative. Deaton argues that, by trying to help poor people in developing countries, the rich world may actually be corrupting those nations' governments and slowing their growth. According to Deaton, and the economists who agree with him, much of the $135 billion that the world's most developed countries spent on official aid in 2014 may not have ended up helping the poor.

    Angus Deaton (LARRY LEVANTI/AFP/Getty Images)

    The idea of wealthier countries giving away aid blossomed in the late 1960s, as the first humanitarian crises reached mass audiences on television. Americans watched through their TV sets as children starved to death in Biafra, an oil-rich area that had seceded from Nigeria and was now being blockaded by the Nigerian government, as Philip Gourevitch recalled in a 2010 story in the New Yorker. Protesters called on the Nixon administration for action so loudly that they ended up galvanizing the largest nonmilitary airlift the world had ever seen. Only a quarter-century after Auschwitz, humanitarian aid seemed to offer the world a new hope for fighting evil without fighting a war.

    There was a strong economic and political argument for helping poor countries, too. In the mid-20th century, economists widely believed that the key to triggering growth -- whether in an already well-off country or one hoping to get richer -- was pumping money into a country's factories, roads and other infrastructure. So in the hopes of spreading the Western model of democracy and market-based economies, the United States and Western European powers encouraged foreign aid to smaller and poorer countries that could fall under the influence of the Soviet Union and China.

    The level of foreign aid distributed around the world soared from the 1960s , peaking at the end of the Cold War, then dipping before rising again. Live Aid music concerts raised public awareness about challenges like starvation in Africa, while the United States launched major, multibillion-dollar aid initiatives . And the World Bank and advocates of aid aggressively seized on research that claimed that foreign aid led to economic development.

    Deaton wasn't the first economist to challenge these assumptions, but over the past two decades his arguments began to receive a great deal of attention. And he made them with perhaps a better understanding of the data than anyone had before. Deaton's skepticism about the benefits of foreign aid grew out of his research, which involved looking in detail at households in the developing world, where he could see the effects of foreign aid intervention.

    "I think his understanding of how the world worked at the micro level made him extremely suspicious of these get-rich-quick schemes that some people peddled at the development level," says Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT.

    The data suggested that the claims of the aid community were sometimes not borne out. Even as the level of foreign aid into Africa soared through the 1980s and 1990s, African economies were doing worse than ever, as the chart below, from a paper by economist Bill Easterly of New York University, shows.


    William Easterly, "Can Foreign Aid Buy Growth?"

    The effect wasn't limited to Africa. Many economists were noticing that an influx of foreign aid did not seem to produce economic growth in countries around the world. Rather, lots of foreign aid flowing into a country tended to be correlated with lower economic growth, as this chart from a paper by Arvind Subramanian and Raghuram Rajan shows.

    The countries that receive less aid, those on the left-hand side of the chart, tend to have higher growth -- while those that receive more aid, on the right-hand side, have lower growth.


    Raghuram G. Rajan and Arvind Subramanian, "Aid and Growth: What Does the Cross-Country Evidence Really Show?"

    Why was this happening? The answer wasn't immediately clear, but Deaton and other economists argued that it had to do with how foreign money changed the relationship between a government and its people.

    Think of it this way: In order to have the funding to run a country, a government needs to collect taxes from its people. Since the people ultimately hold the purse strings, they have a certain amount of control over their government. If leaders don't deliver the basic services they promise, the people have the power to cut them off.

    Deaton argued that foreign aid can weaken this relationship, leaving a government less accountable to its people, the congress or parliament, and the courts.

    "My critique of aid has been more to do with countries where they get an enormous amount of aid relative to everything else that goes on in that country," Deaton said in an interview with Wonkblog. "For instance, most governments depend on their people for taxes in order to run themselves and provide services to their people. Governments that get all their money from aid don't have that at all, and I think of that as very corrosive."

    It might seem odd that having more money would not help a poor country. Yet economists have long observed that countries that have an abundance of wealth from natural resources, like oil or diamonds, tend to be more unequal, less developed and more impoverished, as the chart below shows. Countries at the left-hand side of the chart have fewer fuels, ores and metals and higher growth, while those at the right-hand side have more natural resource wealth, yet slower growth. Economists postulate that this "natural resource curse" happens for a variety of reasons, but one is that such wealth can strengthen and corrupt a government.

    curse

    Like revenue from oil or diamonds, wealth from foreign aid can be a corrupting influence on weak governments, "turning what should be beneficial political institutions into toxic ones," Deaton writes in his book "The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality." This wealth can make governments more despotic, and it can also increase the risk of civil war, since there is less power sharing, as well as a lucrative prize worth fighting for.

    Deaton and his supporters offer dozens of examples of humanitarian aid being used to support despotic regimes and compounding misery, including in Zaire, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Biafra, and the Khmer Rouge on the border of Cambodia and Thailand. Citing Africa researcher Alex de Waal, Deaton writes that "aid can only reach the victims of war by paying off the warlords, and sometimes extending the war."

    He also gives plenty of examples in which the United States gives aid "for 'us,' not for 'them'" – to support our strategic allies, our commercial interests or our moral or political beliefs, rather than the interests of the local people.

    The United States gave aid to Ethiopia for decades under then-President Meles Zenawi Asres, because he opposed Islamic fundamentalism and Ethiopia was so poor. Never mind that Asres was "one of the most repressive and autocratic dictators in Africa," Deaton writes. According to Deaton, "the award for sheer creativity" goes to Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya, president of Mauritania from 1984 to 2005. Western countries stopped giving aid to Taya after his government became too politically repressive, but he managed to get the taps turned on again by becoming one of the few Arab nations to recognize Israel.

    Some might argue for bypassing corrupt governments altogether and distributing food or funding directly among the people. Deaton acknowledges that, in some cases, this might be worth it to save lives. But one problem with this approach is that it's difficult: To get to the powerless, you often have to go through the powerful. Another issue, is that it undermines what people in developing countries need most -- "an effective government that works with them for today and tomorrow," he writes .

    The old calculus of foreign aid was that poor countries were merely suffering from a lack of money. But these days, many economists question this assumption, arguing that development has more to do with the strength of a country's institutions – political and social systems that are developed through the interplay of a government and its people.

    There are lot of places around the world that lack good roads, clean water and good hospitals, says MIT's Acemoglu: "Why do these places exist? If you look at it, you quickly disabuse yourself of the notion that they exist because it's impossible for the state to provide services there." What these countries need even more than money is effective governance, something that foreign aid can undermine, the thinking goes.

    Some people believe that Deaton's critique of foreign aid goes too far. There are better and worse ways to distribute foreign aid, they say. Some project-based approaches -- such as financing a local business, building a well, or providing uniforms so that girls can go to school -- have been very successful in helping local communities. In the last decade, researchers have tried to integrate these lessons from economists and argue for more effective aid practices.

    Many people believe that the aid community needs more scrutiny to determine which practices have been effective and which have not. Economists such as Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, for example, argue for creating randomized control trials that allow researchers to carefully examine the development effects of different types of projects -- for example, following microcredit as it is extended to people in poor countries.

    These methods have again led to a swell in optimism in professional circles about foreign aid efforts. And again, Deaton is playing the skeptic.

    While Deaton agrees that many development projects are successful, he's critical of claims that these projects can be replicated elsewhere or on a larger scale. "The trouble is that 'what works' is a highly contingent concept," he said in an interview. "If it works in the highlands of Kenya, there's no reason to believe it will work in India, or that it will work in Princeton, New Jersey."

    The success of a local project, like microfinancing, also depends on numerous other local factors, which are harder for researchers to isolate. Saying that these randomized control trials prove that certain projects cause growth or development is like saying that flour causes cake, Deaton writes in his book. "Flour 'causes' cakes, in the sense that cakes made without flour do worse than cakes made with flour – and we can do any number of experiments to demonstrate it – but flour will not work without a rising agent, eggs, and butter – the helping factors that are needed for the flour to 'cause' the cake."

    Deaton's critiques of foreign aid stem from his natural skepticism of how people use -- and abuse -- economic data to advance their arguments. The science of measuring economic effects is much more important, much harder and more controversial than we usually think, he told The Post.

    Acemoglu said of Deaton: "He's challenging, and he's sharp, and he's extremely critical of things he thinks are shoddy and things that are over-claiming. And I think the foreign aid area, that policy arena, really riled him up because it was so lacking in rigor but also so grandiose in its claims."

    Deaton doesn't argue against all types of foreign aid. In particular, he believes that certain types of health aid – offering vaccinations, or developing cheap and effective drugs to treat malaria, for example -- have been hugely beneficial to developing countries.

    But mostly, he said, the rich world needs to think about "what can we do that would make lives better for millions of poor people around the world without getting into their economies in the way that we're doing by giving huge sums of money to their governments." Overall, he argues that we should focus on doing less harm in the developing world, like selling fewer weapons to despots, or ensuring that developing countries get a fair deal in trade agreements, and aren't harmed by U.S. foreign policy decisions.

    Deaton also believes that our attitude toward foreign aid – that developed countries ought to swoop in and save everyone else – is condescending and suspiciously similar to the ideas of colonialism. The rhetoric of colonialism, too, "was all about helping people, albeit about bringing civilization and enlightenment to people whose humanity was far from fully recognized," he has written.

    Instead, many of the positive things that are happening in Africa – the huge adoption in cell phones over the past decade, for example – are totally homegrown. He points out that, while the world has made huge strides in reducing poverty in recent decades, almost none of this has been due to aid. Most has been due to development in countries like China, which have received very little aid as a proportion of gross domestic product and have "had to work it out for themselves."

    Ultimately, Deaton argues that we should stand aside and let poorer countries develop in their own ways. "Who put us in charge?" he asks.

    Inequality

    [Jun 26, 2017] Intelligence agency officials play big politics

    Another Mayberry Machiavelli from intelligence community
    Notable quotes:
    "... "In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said." ..."
    "... Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs" ..."
    Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , June 21, 2017 at 1:16 pm
    Appears to be a moron:
    "Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson from the Obama administration told the House Intelligence committee that Moscow's high-tech intrusion did not change ballots, the final count or the reporting of election results.

    Johnson described the steps he took once he learned of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, his fears about an attack on the election itself and his rationale for designating U.S. election systems, including polling places and voter registration databases, as critical infrastructure in early January, two weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration.

    "In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said."

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-obama-homeland-security-chief-face-intelligence-panel-074831923–politics.html

    Nope !! .IS a moron:

    "In January 2011, Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite King's outspoken opposition to American interventionism during his lifetime.[28] Johnson argued that American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were playing the role of the Good Samaritan, consistent with King's beliefs, and that they were fighting to establish the peace for which King hoped.[29][30] Jeremy Scahill of Salon.com called Johnson's remarks "one of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use of Martin Luther King Jr. I've ever seen," while Justin Elliott (also of Salon.com) argued that based on Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War, he would likely have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen."

    yalensis , June 21, 2017 at 3:17 pm
    "Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "

    He lies! My what-if machine (what I have in my basement) tells me that Dr. King would have opposed, in the most militant manner possible, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars!

    Jen , June 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm
    You didn't have to consult the alternative-worlds TARDIS machine database to find out that Dr King would have opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: here's the speech he made opposing the war in Vietnam which may have made him a target for assassination.

    http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_beyond_vietnam/

    yalensis , June 22, 2017 at 5:33 pm
    I rest my case!

    https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

    marknesop , June 21, 2017 at 7:40 pm
    "In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said."

    He's half-right – the idea certainly is simple. Just like him.

    Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs".

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

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
    "... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
    "... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
    "... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
    "... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
    "... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
    "... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program , which should be read with the current book.)

    The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.

    Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.

    Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert constitutional order.

    As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."

    Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally." Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.

    Hating the US

    There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the US.

    Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.

    Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.

    Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters into the equation in determining foreign policy.

    In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American population.

    Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."

    Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.

    Nazi Influences

    Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.

    That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic, which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.

    This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam. Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency, simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.

    That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented. This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."

    'Anti-Partisan' Lessons

    It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps and forests of Russia.'"

    Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.

    Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same). 'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the Nazi period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear political will.'"

    This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo Military Commissions.

    Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine "existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure (VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure" meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.

    "The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing" enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."

    Lauding Petraeus

    Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as they preferred to call it.

    But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program."

    He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program, supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation would develop in practice."

    It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that expand the number of fighters.

    Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles.

    The Bloody Reality

    One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears" as proof of six people killed.

    The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.

    "How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."

    This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine writes.

    A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971, describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the South Vietnamese government.

    But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.

    Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels of CIA involvement.

    Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    CIA Crimes

    Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."

    "Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.

    Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.

    This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.

    Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely.

    Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at ConsortiumNews.com .

    Read more by Todd E. Pierce Inciting Wars the American Way – August 14th, 2016 Chicago Police Adopt Israeli Tactics – December 13th, 2015 US War Theories Target Dissenters – September 13th, 2015 Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War – September 1st, 2015 Has the US Constitution Been Lost to Military Rule?– January 4th, 2015

    [Jun 24, 2017] Deceit and Self-Deception by Robert Trivers – review

    Notable quotes:
    "... What I Don't Know About Animals ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    Konrad Lorenz and Desmond Morris , or anthropologists such as Lionel Tiger . They linked studies of animal behaviour to the idea of Darwinian evolutionary principles to tell readers just how very like the beasts we were in our sex lives, our workplaces and our recreational behaviours. We were advised to look at chimps and other primates and derive understanding of ourselves from their apparently culture-free activities and traits. Underneath all our fancy culture and language, we were simply naked apes enacting primitive territorial imperatives.

    The reading public lapped it up as both a neat, satisfying narrative, and as an excuse for all manner of not-so-civilised behaviours for which we no longer had to take personal and moral blame. We go to war – well, so do baboons; it's in our genes, we can try to overcome it, but in the end as in the beginning we're all just animals. By 1976 we didn't even have to blame the animal in ourselves: Richard Dawkins gave us the selfish gene, whose sole reason for existence was to reproduce itself. And we, that is the body and brain of you and me, were nothing but vehicles for these genes which compelled us to optimise their chances of replicating. Talk to the gene, the conscience isn't listening.

    Much of this was based on algebraic theories of altruism developed by WD Hamilton , who shifted the mechanism of evolution from making groups fitter to survive to a new insistence on individual inclusive fitness. This was via kin selection, which drills down deeper than the inter-relatedness of individual organisms, to the separate alleles (of which genes are made) in every organism: these preferentially promote only those vehicles which contain alleles most closely related to themselves. Genes were responsible, somehow, for you fighting the whirlwind to save your sister, but probably not your less related cousin, and certainly not the stranger from down the road.

    Some people were not crazy about this view of the human race. Genes doing algebra didn't suit a more macrocosmic idea of a fallible but responsible humanity.

    Robert Trivers was the man who produced the unifying theory of kin selection and altruism. Now, decades on, he has arrived at a big, new universal theory, also essentially based on the arithmetic of gene selection. Deceit is useful where telling the (unpleasant) truth would hamper your progress. Progress towards what? Trivers would say your fitness, which is defined as raising the chances of replicating your genes into the next generation.

    Your genes, apparently, would agree with him; but they would, wouldn't they? That is if they were capable of agreeing. I want to hang on to the fact that the building blocks of ourselves do not want or intend anything. Chemicals aren't conscious, although by amazing chance they can combine to make a conscious organism.

    Once self-conscious humans begin to do science, and with the benefit of language, start to describe the nature of the chemicals that make them what they are, but having to use regular language if they want a large audience (maths is a much better language, but fewer people can read it), they cannot help but slide into the notion of intention. Dawkins's selfish gene gained an absurd life of its own because most people don't speak arithmetic.

    The biological mechanism by which we conceal inconvenient truths from ourselves and others is shown, says Trivers, in functional MRI scans of blood flow associated with neural activity in the brain: "It is estimated that fully ten seconds before consciousness of intent, the neural signals begin that will later give rise to the consciousness and then the behaviour itself." Freud, who always believed that neurology would discover a physical basis for the unconscious, would be delighted, though according to Trivers, psychoanalysis is nothing more than a money-grabbing hoax. Yet there remains a void between brain chemicals doing what they do and the emergence of the sense we all have of possessing a mind.

    Trivers's theories of deceit and self-deceit are based on multiple gleanings from experimental psychology. A trial with rats shows this, another with students suggests that. The actual experiments are referenced, rather minimally, in page-related endnotes, but Trivers's writing is full of halting phraseology as he slips from findings in the lab or questionnaire to the generality of human social behaviour.

    He suggests from relatedness theory that fathers should show a "slight genetic bias towards their daughters", but "no one knows if this is true". General assertions about human behaviour are peppered with such phrases as "One is tempted to imagine ", "in mice at least ", "work still in its infancy ", "first speculations ", "Whether any of my speculations are true I have no idea ". And, really, if he doesn't, I certainly don't.

    Once he has laid out his evidence, our biologically determined deceit behaviour is ready to account for just about everything Trivers doesn't like about the world, such as the false justifications for the invasion of Iraq, the self-deceiving use, by the US and UK, of 9/11 to declare war on oil-rich countries and on to torture, religion and stock-market trading. It so happens that Trivers and I dislike much the same things but, though I daresay knowledge is generally better than lack of it, I'm not convinced of the benefits of offering us the excuse of having been manipulated by our genes for our repeatedly scurrilous behaviour.

    While the first part of the book explains the theory, and the second part discusses how deceit was responsible for all the political and social injustices both he and I perceive in the world, there is a third element woven through both. An actual individual life, that of Trivers himself, emerges, like a gene in the organism, offered perhaps as a consciously self-deprecating example of what evolutionary pressure to deceive can do to a person. Somehow, though, it comes across as back-handed boasting.

    The man whom Trivers calls "I" is a compulsive thief who can't go into a room without coming away with a trophy. He talks of his "'inadvertent' touching of women", which occurs exclusively with his left (unconscious) hand. Apropos chimps turning their backs to hide an erection from a dominant male, he explains that he finds it very hard "in the presence of a woman with whom I am close, to receive a phone call from another woman with whom I may have, or only wish to have, a relationship, without turning my back to pursue the conversation".

    He understands the male/female gender split by recollecting "trying to poison the minds of my three daughters against their mother". He nearly killed his girlfriend and nephew by driving the nephew's "cool car" too fast on a precipitous road, when he noticed her interest in the younger man. And after pages and pages on biological selection, evolutionary pressure and the dangerous deception that is religion, it not only turns out that he prays regularly, but he gives a short lecture on the proper way to say the "Lord's Prayer" (emphasise "thy"). I wasn't surprised to discover that he is on prescription antidepressants, as well as using ganja and cocaine.

    There will be Iron Johns who read this book and cheer, and although he explains that each sex (abhorring the word "gender", which he calls a euphemism) contains both male and female genes, my male genes are just too wimpy to find any charm in Trivers's display of self-disclosure – machismo and pet peeves – dressed up as an important new evolutionary understanding of humanity.

    Jenny Diski's What I Don't Know About Animals is published by Virago.

    frustratedartist , 11 Oct 2011 03:20

    @greaterzog

    Oh dear- could you then...disentangle your own behaviour from your 'human nature".

    In general- Yes. Human behaviour changes rapidly and depends on culture and individual choices. Human nature changes very very slowly, in 'evolutionary time'. Too slowly for it to be observed.

    On the level of the individual -- No. I can't disentangle my personal choices from my inherited tendencies. To what extent does my behaviour (or my character)reflect my genes or upbringing, to what extent is it my own free will? Nature, Nurture, or Nietzsche?, as Stephen Fry would say. I can't say- except that I believe that we all have free will and are therefore in most cases responsible for our actions.

    As for 'my' human nature, that is a meaningless phrase. Human nature I would define as the (evolved) psychological traits humans have in common .

    greatherzog , 10 Oct 2011 15:57

    In his article Pinker gives (I think) quite a convincing explanation of how human behaviour can be changing for the better, while human nature (perforce) remains the same.

    Oh dear- could you then-with the help of Pinker's pseudo-scientific, deterministic, eurocentric tosh and/or Dawkins overly simplistic, to the point of idiocy take on genes and evolution- disentangle your own behaviour from your 'human nature.' I am really curious.

    [Jun 22, 2017] Neocons influence on US foreign policy

    Equating critique of Israel with anti-Semitism is like equating critique of Nazi Germany with with denigrating everything German.
    Jun 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    lavoisier Website June 21, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

    @Sam J. "...In the end, it is the American people who decide whether Israel is to be or not to be a vital American ally and friend..."

    To make informed decisions you have to have information. The American people don't have that. So they really haven't made a decision at all. They've been tricked into doing things that are covered up in lies. The American people are responsible even if they are being manipulated by the MSM.

    Too many Americans are woefully ignorant about the world, particularly about the extent that Jewish interests have manipulated so many aspects of our government and our culture. If you even bring this issue up you are immediately branded a hater and your arguments dismissed.

    In short, many Americans are happy to drink the kool aid.

    It is a much deeper problem than simply our American Pravda.

    Many of us have chosen to be blind, refusing to even consider the possibility that we are being manipulated, and in the process fail as responsible citizens.

    One can choose to be red pilled today. This is ultimately the choice to go through life with an open mind and to have a high regard for reality, however uncomfortable that reality may be.

    annamaria June 21, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

    @Sam J. "...The source of Jewish power in the US is their brokerage of voter bias and federal entitlements between the federal government and the public..."

    There may be a little bit of that but it's not the main reason. The main reasons are:
    1. They own practically all media in the US.
    2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
    3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
    4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way.

    So if you run against them in the primary you will have extremely well funded opponents and the press will savage you. If that doesn't work they will try to redistrict you out of a job. If that doesn't work they will frame or kill you like they did to Ohio Congressman James Traficant. "1. They own practically all media in the US.
    2. They own the FED providing almost limitless cash to their preferred people.
    3. They're blackmailing huge numbers of our Representatives with little Boys and little Girls.
    4. They'll kill you if they don't get their way."

    And this has been leading the States – and Israel along with the States – to the demise. The US governing institutions have lost their ability to respond to reality and instead they respond to personal desires only. Hence the approaching danger of a hot war.

    annamaria June 21, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

    @Sam Shama

    Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television.
    Is this the one?

    http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/video/tRfgCC966_LEXj4URvqwisoUugDosea4/oliver-stone-spent-two-years-interviewing-vladimir-putin/

    If so, you'll need to issue a retraction of your statement and all the other insinuations you derived from it. If it is not the video, I issue my apologies in advance.

    ......he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson.
    With this slander which others commented on earlier, it does deserve repeating emphatically, you've submerged yourself in conspiracies for reasons which appear to be occult Jew hatred impossible to contain just under the surface. It beggars belief that statement was written tongue in cheek; excessive cheek, tongue impossible to pry unstuck. An attempt at humour? Poor taste, really.
    The Israelis know what is going on all the time.
    Pure nonsense at some level. At another level, it is well-known we know more about our allies than their respective governments do and vice versa.
    ......but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris,
    So they are progressives, what of it? You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as a nation of people which took hostage American diplomats. These congressmen are doing no more than what their constituents want.

    The readership of UR, a collection of a few excellent thinkers, overwhelmed by a larger group of lunatics, do not reflect the sentiment of the vast majority. They could not care what you or I think of Iranians. They remember Nov 1979.

    And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14th.
    Antisemitism is a serious matter and it is well for it to bear scrutiny in some cases where through their actions overzealous elements[some in the judiciary] trivialise its intent. But you seem to favour an environment where mere vigilance through a bill deserves defeat. Unanimously.
    President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it
    It's comical to behold the "select" group which voted for Trump now complain on these pages of the UR about what the man said he was going to do from the very beginning on the Israel-Palestine issue. It is not a sham. Trump never believed the "bullshit" coming from the U.N. [a body which has over 40 Muslim and Arab members] on the contrary, attacking the solitary Jewish nation state. He required no "taking aside" by Bibi. One needn't travel to the West Bank to find Jew hatred; a few months' worth of reading your columns being quite sufficient.

    I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated"
    Such a Senate resolution requires convincing senators of its necessity. No one is stopping anyone.

    I understand you feel Jerusalem is better in the hands of Palestinians and Arabs. We disagree.

    A gem of an article all things considered.

    "You fail to understand most Americans view Iranians as a nation of people which took hostage American diplomats."

    You feign ignorance of the USSLiberty. The American servicemen were not just hostages for Israel – American servicemen were murdered by Israelis: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/fifty-years-later-nsa-keeps-details-of-israels-uss-liberty-attack-secret/
    Most Americans are also aware that the US Congress has become Israel-occupied Congress, with the horrific consequences for the global insecurity.
    "Israel Has Been Secretly Funding Syrian Rebels For Years:" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/israel-has-been-secretly-funding-syrian-rebels-years
    "The Kagans Are Back; Wars to Follow:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/
    There was an enormous sympathy for Jewish victims of the WWII; the sympathy and goodwill for Israel have been completed squandered by the bloody ziocons. Only opportunists stay loyal to Israeli agenda, whereas honest people look with horror on the transformation of a victim into an amoral villain.

    [Jun 21, 2017] An Assault on Language Extremism by Gregory Barrett

    Notable quotes:
    "... The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo. ..."
    "... As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome"). ..."
    "... This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West. ..."
    "... As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party. ..."
    "... Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet. ..."
    "... More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news. ..."
    "... It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media. ..."
    "... Social Democrats ..."
    "... Christian Democrats ..."
    "... The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth. ..."
    "... I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity. ..."
    Jun 19, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    We have had a certain amount of success in exposing the amorphous and mendacious term "Fake News" for what it is: a tool in a major campaign of propaganda against dissenting independent journalism and political writing, a campaign perpetrated by governments and corporate media. The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo.

    As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome").

    This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West.

    As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party.

    Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet.

    More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news.

    It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media.

    Which brings us to one of the latest victims in the assault on language by the 1% and their pawns in the presstitute media: the word "extremism".

    Here in the European Union where I live, this word is currently heard so often in the traditional media – along with another victimized word being brutalized almost non-stop, "populist" – that even poorly-educated persons who aren't sure exactly what is meant can understand that they must mean something very, very bad.

    If any such confused persons should take the time to pay closer attention and attempt to ascertain what it is that makes these "extremists" and "populists" so deplorable and dangerous, they may soon notice that at least one of these words, "extremist", has a pretty nebulous field of application. According to major sources of conventional wisdom in the EU, terrorists are "extremists". But "extremism", more generally, is also applied casually to nearly any political parties and interest groups to the Left and the Right of the large (if shrinking in some countries like France) parties called "people's parties" (Volksparteien) here in Germany: the no-longer-socialist Social Democrats who are allegedly center-left, the pseudo-Christian Christian Democrats who portray themselves as center-right, and even the thoroughly compromised and faded-to-brown Green Party , which has gone to great lengths and engaged in stupendous contortions of deliberate conformism to achieve its modern status as a pillar of the established order, a long journey from its radical roots in the 1980s.

    As you may have deduced from my snarky tone, I find myself firmly ensconced among the so-called "extremists" of the Left.

    What, one may legitimately ask, are the views which have led to this branding as a dangerous individual? Do I advocate keeping a stock of Molotov Cocktails handy for quick use when the shit starts to fly? I do not.

    Okay I guess I'll have to come clean. Here are the radical, dangerous, "extremist" positions I support when I advocate more influence for this political party:

    In addition, there is my allegedly "extreme" position on the environment, which is not so much a priority for "Die Linke" but is the most important issue of all for me personally. I am convinced that only a radical transformation of the world economy can save this planet, including most life on Earth. I believe this can only come about through an end to industrial capitalism: a ban on most fossil fuels, an end to the production of most plastics, an end to most beef production and strict organic regulation of all meat production, and worldwide mandatory measures to clean up the poisonous residue of the current system which is killing the planet. This will necessarily involve huge cuts in most military structures and war-making as well. The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth.

    For these views, and my concomitant rejection of the large political parties in the EU and the USA which have done almost nothing to save the planet that was not outweighed by massive destruction – parties which thus, in the name of "realism", have sold our future to the rich and may have doomed all life on this planet, as scientific opinion is near unanimous that time is short – for these views I am labeled an "extremist".

    I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity.

    [Jun 19, 2017] The Politics of Lying by Henry A. Giroux

    The author mixed Trump with Clinton political machine and his characterization are applicable first of all to Clinton political machine, and only secondarily to Trump,
    Notable quotes:
    "... As important as the Trump-Comey affair is, it runs the risk of both exacerbating the transformation of politics into theater ..."
    "... You belong by affirming. To win, you don't need reasons anymore, only power." ..."
    "... This is especially important at a time when the United States is no longer a functioning democracy and is in the presence of what Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis refer to in their book Liquid Evil as "the emergence of modern barbarity." ..."
    "... Note: This is an expanded version of a piece that originally appeared on Ragazine . ..."
    Jun 15, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

    ...Trump cannot be trusted because he not only infects political discourse with a language of hate, bigotry and lies, but also because he has allowed an ideology built on the use of disinformation to take over the White House. Under the Trump administration, the truth is distorted for ideological, political and commercial reasons. Lying has become an industry and tool of power. All administrations and governments lie, but under Trump lying has become normalized. It is a calling card for corruption and lawlessness, one that provides the foundation for authoritarianism.

    Trump is a salesman and a bully. He constantly assumes the macho swagger of a used car salesman from a TV commercial while at the same time, as Rebecca Solnit observes, he bullies facts and truths as well as friends and acquaintances. He is obsessed with power and prides himself on the language of command, loyalty and humiliation. He appears fixated on the fear that the United States could still act on the memory, if not the ghosts, of a real democracy.

    ... ... ...

    A democracy cannot exist without informed citizens and public spheres and educational apparatuses that uphold standards of truth, honesty, evidence, facts and justice. Under Trump, disinformation masquerading as news -- often via his Twitter account -- has become a weapon for legitimating ignorance and civic illiteracy. Not only has Trump lied repeatedly, he has also attacked the critical media, claimed journalists are enemies of the American people and argued that the media is the opposition party. There is more at stake here than the threat of censorship or the normalization of lying; there is also an attack on long-valued sources of information and the public spheres that produce them. Trump's government has become a powerful disimagination machine in which the distinction between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy are erased.

    ... ... ...

    Berkowitz's piece is worth citing at length. He writes :

    The reason fact-checking is ineffective today -- at least in convincing those who are members of movements -- is that the mobilized members of a movement are confounded by a world resistant to their wishes and prefer the promise of a consistent alternate world to reality. When Donald Trump says he's going to build a wall to protect our borders, he is not making a factual statement that an actual wall will actually protect our borders; he is signaling a politically incorrect willingness to put America first. When he says that there was massive voter fraud or boasts about the size of his inauguration crowd, he is not speaking about actual facts, but is insisting that his election was legitimate. 'What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part.' Leaders of these mass totalitarian movements do not need to believe in the truth of their lies and ideological clichés. The point of their fabrications is not to establish facts, but to create a coherent fictional reality. What a movement demands of its leaders is the articulation of a consistent narrative combined with the ability to abolish the capacity for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, between reality and fiction.

    As important as the Trump-Comey affair is, it runs the risk of both exacerbating the transformation of politics into theater and reinforcing what Todd Gitlin refers to as Trump's support for an "apocalyptic nationalism, the point of which is to belong, not to believe. You belong by affirming. To win, you don't need reasons anymore, only power." Trump values loyalty over integrity. He lies, in part, to test the loyalty of those who both follow him and align themselves with his power. The Trump-Comey affair must be understood within a broader attack on the fundamentals of education, critical modes of agency and democracy itself.

    This is especially important at a time when the United States is no longer a functioning democracy and is in the presence of what Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis refer to in their book Liquid Evil as "the emergence of modern barbarity." Trump's discourse of lies, misrepresentations and fakery makes it all the more urgent for us to acknowledge that education is at the center of politics because it is crucial in the struggle over consciousness, values, identity and agency. Ignorance in the service of education targets the darkness and reinforces and thrives on civic illiteracy. Trump's disinformation machine is about more than lying. It is about using all of the tools and resources for education to create a dystopia in which authoritarianism exercises the raw power of ignorance and control.

    Artists, educators, young people, journalists and others need to make the virtue of truth-telling visible again. We need to connect democracy with a notion of truth-telling and consciousness that is on the side of economic and political justice, and democracy itself. If we are all going to fight for and with the most marginalized people, there must be a broader understanding of their needs. We need to create narratives and platforms in which those who have been deemed disposable can identify themselves and the conditions through which power and oppression bear down on their lives.

    This is not an easy task, but nothing less than justice, democracy and the planet itself are at risk.

    Note: This is an expanded version of a piece that originally appeared on Ragazine . Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

    Henry A. Giroux Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books are America's Addiction to Terrorism (Monthly Review Press, 2016) and America at War with Itself (City Lights, 2017). He is also a contributing editor to a number of journals, including Tikkun, the Journal of Wild Culture and Ragazine. Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors. His website is www.henryagiroux.com .

    [Jun 15, 2017] Liars Lying About Nearly Everything by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea, all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington. ..."
    "... More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium. ..."
    "... So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. ..."
    "... The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism, the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups. ..."
    "... The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. ..."
    "... Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly as the Israelis, who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the threat posed by Tehran for a number of years. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Terrorism supporters in Washington and Riyadh close ranks against Qatar

    The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846, when Americans who believed in manifest destiny sought to expand to the Pacific Ocean at the expense of Mexico, acquiring by force of arms California and what were to become the southwestern states. In 1898 the U.S. picked up the pieces of a dying Spanish Empire in a war that was driven by American imperialists and the yellow dog reporting of the Hearst Newspaper chain. And then came World War 1, World War 2, and Korea, all avoidable and all enabled by deliberate lying coming out of Washington.

    More recently, we have seen Vietnam with its Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, Granada and Panama with palpably ridiculous pretexts for war, Iraq with its nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Afghanistan with its lies about bin Laden, Libya and its false claims about Gaddafi, and most recently Syria and Iran with allegations of an Iranian threat to the United States and lies about Syrian use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. And if one adds in the warnings to Russia over Ukraine, a conflict generated by Washington when it brought about regime change in Kiev, you have a tissue of lies that span the globe and bring with them never-ending conflict to advance the American imperium.

    So lies go with the American Way of War, but the latest twist and turns in the Middle East are bizarre even by Washington's admittedly low standards of rectitude. On the 5th of June, Saudi Arabia led a gaggle of Arab and Muslim nations that included the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain to cut off all diplomatic, commercial and transport links with Qatar, effectively blockading it. Qatar is currently isolated from its neighbors, subject to sanctions, and there have even been Saudi threats of going to war against its tiny neighbor. Salman al-Ansari, the president of the Saudi American Public Relation Affairs Committee, even tweeted: "To the emir of Qatar, regarding your alignment with the extremist government of Iran and your abuse of the Custodian of the two sacred mosques, I would like to remind you that Mohammed Morsi [of Egypt] did exactly the same and was then toppled and imprisoned."

    It is the second time the Saudis have moved against Qatar. Two years ago, there was a break in diplomatic relations, but they were eventually restored. This time, the principal allegation being directed against Qatar by Riyadh is that it supports terrorism. The terrorist groups that it allegedly embraces are Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi's affiliation. Hezbollah and Hamas are close to Iran which is perhaps the real reason for their being singled out as many would call them resistance movements or even legitimate political parties rather than terrorists. And the Iran connection is critical as Qatar has been under fire for allegedly saying nice things about trying to respect and get along with Tehran, undoubtedly somewhat motivated by its joint exploitation with Iran of a vast gas field in the Persian Gulf.

    Qatar's ownership of al-Jazeera also has been a sore point with the Saudis and other Gulf states as its reporting has often been critical of developments in the region, criticisms that have often rankled the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptians. It has been accused of spreading propaganda for "militant groups." One of the Saudi demands to permit Qatar to again become a "normal" Arab Gulf state would be to close down the network.

    The terrorism claims by the Saudis are, of course, hypocritical. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia are well known as sponsors of Salafist terrorism, including the funding and arming of groups like ISIS and the various al-Qaeda franchises, to include al-Nusra. Much of the money admittedly comes from private individuals and is often channeled through Islamic charities, but both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been extremely lax in their enforcement of anti-terror and money laundering regulations. In a 2009 State Department memo signed off on by Hillary Clinton it was stated that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." Qatar, meanwhile, has been described as a "permissive environment for terrorist financing."

    The Saudis also have considerable blood on their hands by way of their genocidal assault on neighboring Yemen. In addition, the Saudi Royal House has served as the principal propagator of Wahhabism, the virulently fundamentalist version of Islam that provides a form of religious legitimacy to terror while also motivating many young Muslims to join radical groups.

    The falling out of two Gulf Arab regimes might be a matter of relatively little importance but for the unnecessary intervention of President Donald Trump in the quarrel. He has taken credit for the burgeoning conflict, implying that his recent visit to the region set the stage for the ostracizing of Qatar. His twitter on the affair, posted on June 6 th , read ""So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!" And he again came down on Qatar on June 9 th during a press conference.

    Trump's tweets might well be regarded as simply maladroit, driven by ignorance, but they could also provide a glimpse of a broader agenda. While in the Middle East, Trump was bombarded with anti-Iranian propaganda coming from both Israel and the Saudis. An escalation of hostilities with the intention of starting an actual war involving the United States to take down Iran is not unimaginable, particularly as the Israelis, who have already endorsed the Saudi moves, have been arguing that option and lying about the threat posed by Tehran for a number of years.

    [Jun 14, 2017] Secret societies, Emperor's New Clothes, obvious lies, crimes

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US is a literal rogue state empire led by neocolonial looting liars. ..."
    "... Rogue state empire ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com

    The societies try to be "secret," but their lies and crimes are Emperor's New Clothes obvious for anyone caring to apply a high school level of education to look:

    [Jun 14, 2017] In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    Jun 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc, June 14, 2017 at 08:59 AM

    Timely Thought of the Day:

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    George Orwell

    anne , June 14, 2017 at 11:49 AM
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    There is no reason to think that this passage, however interesting, was written or spoken by George Orwell.

    Fred C. Dobbs - , June 14, 2017 at 12:21 PM
    More on this:

    In a Time of Universal Deceit - Telling
    the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act

    http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/24/truth-revolutionary/

    im1dc - , June 14, 2017 at 02:27 PM
    Hey, "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" remains a great thought for today, whoever said it.
    ilsm - , June 14, 2017 at 02:59 PM
    orwell also did not actually say 'we should love those rough men in the night who slaughter for us so we can sleep in 68 degree air conditioning bc the Saudi remain in power........'

    And GC Scott's Patton's speech was a compilation.......

    im1dc - , June 14, 2017 at 02:26 PM
    My copy of Barlett's does not list this Orwell quote and Fred's link pretty well dispells it from being definitively an Orwell quote, although not absolutely.

    It is possible that he did SAY IT to some group or other in England, rather than write it in one of his books, essays, or articles and that is how it survives today with his attribution.

    Such attribution is not unheard of for older English authors. Apparently they drank a lot in pubs and clubs.

    Keep in mind that even today the English don't 100% agree that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays or poems, at least not without help from another.

    libezkova - , June 14, 2017 at 03:21 PM
    A similar saying was used by Ron Paul in 2008-"Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

    http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/in_a_time_of_universal_deceit_telling_the_truth_is_a_revolutionary_act/

    == quote==
    Entry from August 15, 2011

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"


    "In a time/state of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" is a statement often attributed to author George Orwell (1903-1950). The saying doesn't appear in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948), his essay "Politics and the English Language" (1946), or any other of Orwell's writings. The saying has been cited in print since at least 1984 (when it was attributed to George Orwell).

    A similar saying was used by author and presidential candidate Ron Paul in 2008-"Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

    [Jun 12, 2017] He who says organization, says oligarchy. Organizations and oligarchies are self-reinforcing psychopath magnets

    Notable quotes:
    "... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
    Jun 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    PavewayIV | Jun 11, 2017 1:10:50 PM | 42

    Robert Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy (1911)

    "He who says organization, says oligarchy."

    Paraphrasing Lobaczewski c. 1959:

    "Organizations and oligarchies are self-reinforcing psychopath magnets."

    PavewayIV's Magic Box of Death:

    Put a few oligarchs in a box and set on floor. Soon, hundreds of 'little people' will be attracted inside. Close box and shake vigorously. Torrents of dead 'little people' will pour out, but never any oligarchs. Repeat as often as desired. It's magic!
    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 4:58:36 PM | 50

    thanks for the link. reading what amounts to a short introduction, i discovered that Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy itself is available, as so many good books are available, from our friends and benefactors at library genesis.

    Archive.org has one: Political parties; a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy Michels, Robert, 1876-1936 Free

    [Jun 12, 2017] How useful is the word inequality ? not much as it is use as a typical sponge word like poor incread of low waged or underpaid

    Mar 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Paine, March 29, 2017 at 02:43 PM
    How useful is the word inequality ? typical sponge word like " poor " when u mean low waged

    Or "middle class " when you mean high waged

    The shares in GDP are zero sum at any one point in time


    If the bottom wage rises fastest with some arrangement of wages
    That ought to look preferred to anyone without any sense of where they'd land

    Paine -> Paine ... , March 29, 2017 at 02:49 PM
    Of course this is if your frame is the individual
    and here's only a wage earning class
    No exploiters allowed M

    But if the exploiters arrive with their rag tag of proprietary types trailing them ?

    Turn to a Class frame ?


    Maximize the share of your class

    Maximally unequal
    Ie class dictatorship


    Equality before the law

    Equality in the voting booth
    These are very different dimensions of social being
    From equality of income

    Income ...another sponge word M

    libezkova -> Paine ... , March 29, 2017 at 07:06 PM
    "like " poor "
    when u mean low waged"

    Distortion of the language is the main tool of neoliberalism.

    the key to neoliberal propaganda.

    Very similar to Bolshevism in this respect.

    [Jun 12, 2017] You can't fix the media because its very raison d'etre is to subvert, mislead and corrupt, to put the viewer and the nation inside a mental labyrinth.

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    LetItRest Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 5:07 am GMT

    You can't fix the media because its very raison d'etre is to subvert, mislead and corrupt, to put the viewer and the nation inside a mental labyrinth.

    You see, in the US and the Western World, the Media is owned by a cartel of Jewish people with a common agenda – they only talk about the same events, with the same perspective. They change gears and news cycles in unison, they command the discourse window.

    Of course, Fox News is the opposite of CNN to the masses of disinformed, but this is just a cordial accord between Owners to not eat each other's audiences. Mainly a market strategy to not create cannibalization.

    If the Media was supposed to be serious, "but currently is not and in need of saving", instead of the truth of it never being anything close to that, just a propaganda machine, then, in all those decades, and specially now in the age of the internet, they should have been speaking about the system of Debt Currency that ruins all nations, or how today in America we have the biggest monopolies in the history of mankind, or how Immigration from countries with non-European populations destroys social trust, neighborhoods, cities, lower wages, overbudens public services, reintroduces extinct diseases and many many more.

    But they don't talk about any of that, and never will.

    Forget about the media altogether, let it die and rot.

    [Jun 12, 2017] In Praise of Hypocrisy by Masha Gessen

    Empire of Lies is a 2008 thriller novel written by Andrew Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
    In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha proved to be a real artist in this art.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
    "... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
    "... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
    "... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
    "... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
    "... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
    "... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
    "... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
    "... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | nyt.com

    Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.

    One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never tires of pointing out, "We won."

    In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr. Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory in America. This is a good thing.

    The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?

    The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them. He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.

    Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers.

    Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.

    In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles.

    This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism," the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt.

    This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"

    To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...

    Hungary's PM Viktor Orban praises Trump for saying countries should put their own interests first
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-nationalist-hungary-pm-viktor-orban-praise-america-first-a7542361.html

    ===

    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:27 PM

    I am less worried now we got Trump and not apparatchik (experienced in deep state and catering to Jihadis) Clinton.
    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:25 PM
    The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast Asia.

    Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.

    yuan, February 18, 2017 at 09:36 PM
    it's telling that you believe genuine liberalism is positive...
    ilsm , February 18, 2017 at 04:45 AM
    Vox, what about reporting from a crystal ball requires truth?
    Peter K. - , February 18, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! Hide under your bed.
    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM
    Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument would win!

    How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

    If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM

    the dems' deep state have already trodden the Bill of Rights how worse can it get......

    fascism is in the US for 8 years or so.

    [Jun 11, 2017] Neo-Gramscianism - Wikipedia

    Jun 11, 2017 | en.wikipedia.org
    Neo-Gramscianism applies a critical theory approach to the study of International Relations (IR) and the Global Political Economy (GPE) that explores the interface of ideas, institutions and material capabilities as they shape the specific contours of the state formation. The theory is heavily influenced by the writings of Antonio Gramsci . [1]

    Neo-Gramscianism analyzes how the particular constellation of social forces, the state and the dominant ideational configuration define and sustain world orders. In this sense, the Neo-Gramscian approach breaks the decades-old stalemate between the realist schools of thought, and the liberal theories by historicizing the very theoretical foundations of the two streams as part of a particular world order, and finding the interlocking relationship between agency and structure . Furthermore, Karl Polanyi , Karl Marx , Max Weber , Niccolň Machiavelli , Max Horkheimer , Theodor Adorno and Michel Foucault are cited as major sources within the Critical theory of International Relations. [1] York University professor emeritus, Robert W. Cox 's article "Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory", in Millennium 10 (1981) 2, and "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method", published in Millennium 12 (1983) 2. In his 1981 article, Cox demands a critical study of IR, as opposed to the usual "problem-solving" theories, which do not interrogate the origin, nature and development of historical structures, but accept for example that states and the (supposedly) "anarchic" relationships between them as Kantian Dinge an sich .

    However, Cox disavows the label Neo-Gramscian despite the fact that in a follow-up article, he showed how Gramsci's thought can be used to analyze power structures within the GPE. Particularly Gramsci's concept of hegemony , vastly different from the realists' conception of hegemony, appears fruitful. Gramsci's state theory, his conception of " historic blocs " – dominant configurations of material capabilities, ideologies and institutions as determining frames for individual and collective action – and of élites acting as "organic intellectuals" forging historic blocs , is also deemed useful.

    The Neo-Gramscian approach has also been developed along somewhat different lines by Cox's colleague, Stephen Gill , distinguished research professor of political science at York University in Toronto . Gill contributed to showing how the elite Trilateral Commission acted as an "organic intellectual", forging the (currently hegemonic) ideology of neoliberalism and the so-called " Washington Consensus " and later in relation to the globalization of power and resistance in his book "Power and Resistance in the New World Order" (Palgrave 2003). Gill also partnered with fellow Canadian academic A. Claire Cutler to release a Neo-Gramscian inspired volume entitled "New Constitutionalism and World Order" (Cambridge 2014). The book brings together a selection of critical theorists and Neo-Gramscians to analyze the disciplinary power of legal and constitutional innovations in the global political economy. Co-editor A. Claire Cutler has been a pioneer scholar detailing a Neo-Gramscian theory of international law . [2] Outside of North America, the so-called "Amsterdam School" around Kees Van Der Pijl and Henk Overbeek (at VU University Amsterdam ) and individual researchers in Germany , notably in Düsseldorf , Kassel and Marburg as well as at the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex in the UK, and other parts of the world, have adopted the neo-Gramscian critical method.

    Basics of the neo-Gramscian perspective [ edit ]

    In the mainstream approaches to international or global political economy the ontological centrality of the state is not in question. In contrast, Neo-Gramscianism, using an approach which Henk Overbeek, Professor of International Relations at the VU University , calls transnational historical materialism , "identifies state formation and interstate politics as moments of the transnational dynamics of capital accumulation and class formation". [3]

    Neo-Gramscianism perceives state sovereignty as subjugated to a global economic system marked by the emergence of a transnational financial system and a corresponding transnational system of production. The major players in these systems, multinational corporations and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF , have evolved into a "transnational historic bloc" that exercises global hegemony (in contrast to the realist view of hegemony as the "predominant power of a state or a group of states"). [4] The historic bloc acquires its authority through the tacit consent of the governed population gained through coercive techniques of intellectual and cultural persuasion, largely absent violence. It links itself to other social groups that have been involved in political struggles [5] to expand its influence and seeks to solidify its power through the standardization and liberalization of national economies, creating a single regulatory regime (e.g. World Trade Organization ).

    There are powerful forces opposing the progress of this historic bloc who may form counterhegemonies to challenge it as part of an open-ended class struggle. These might include neo-mercantilists who depend on the protection of tariffs and state subsidies, or alliances of lesser developed countries , or feminist and environmentalist movements in the industrialized west. [6] If a counterhegemony grows large enough it is able to subsume and replace the historic bloc it was born in. Neo-Gramscians use the Machiavellian terms war of position and war of movement to explain how this is possible. In a war of position a counterhegemonic movement attempts, through persuasion or propaganda, to increase the number of people who share its view on the hegemonic order; in a war of movement the counterhegemonic tendencies which have grown large enough overthrow, violently or democratically, the current hegemony and establish themselves as a new historic bloc. [7] [8]

    [Jun 08, 2017] Washington's Empire Is Not Unraveling - The Unz Review

    Jun 08, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Paul Craig Roberts June 5, 2017 700 Words RSS Jump To... Content Top Bottom Section Current Next Bookmark Toggle All ToC Remove from Library Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

    The military/security complex spent seven decades building its empire. The complex assassinated one American president (JFK) who threatened the empire and drove another (Richard Nixon) out of office. The complex does not tolerate the election of politicians in Europe who might not follow Washington's line on foreign and economic policy.

    Suddenly, according to the Western and even Russian media, the complex is going to let one man, Trump, who does not rule America, and one woman, Merkel, who does not rule Germany, destroy its empire.

    According to the presstitutes, by pulling out of the Paris Accord (the global climate pact) and stating that NATO members should contribute more to the alliance's budget for which the US taxpayer has an overweighted share, Trump has caused Merkel to conclude that Europe can no longer rely on Washington. The discord between Trump and Merkel and Washington's resignation of its leadership position has destroyed the Western alliance and left the EU itself on the verge of being torn apart.

    All of this is nonsensical sillyness. What has happened is this:

    Just as men in dark suits and dark ties carrying briefcases explained to Trump that it was not Washington's policy to normalize relations with Russia, they explained to him that it was not Washington's policy to exit the Paris Accord. Trump said something like this: Look, you guys, you have already required me to abandon my peace initiative with Russia and my intent to pull out of Syria. Now you are forcing me off my "America First" pledge. If people realize that I am not really the president, who are you going to rule through? What about a compromise?

    Here is the deal, as Trump made perfectly clear in his speech. He is temporarily pulling the US out of the Paris Accord while he immediately opens negotiations to rejoin the Paris Accord on terms less burdensome to Americans. In other words, the "pull out" is a face-saving gesture that will result in a small reduction in America's share of the cost. We will have a "Trump victory" and no damage to the Paris Accord.

    Merkel facing reelection needs a boost that will refocus German attention from the one million Muslim refugees, bringing crime, rape, and terrorism in their train, that Merkel brought into Germany. Her dramatic statement that Europe can no longer rely on America was a perfect way to refocus attention. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and Merkel got together and agreed on how they would play this.

    Yet neither reporters nor commentators could report the obvious truth. Why? The Western media could not let pass the opportunity to denounce Trump for destroying American leadership and the climate, and environmental organizations seized the fundraising opportunity to oppose Trump's climate destruction. Russian commentators saw hope for Russia in NATO and the EU breaking up as consequences of America going its own way.

    There are two serious implications of this media deception. One is that Americans and the world are blinded to the fact that there are power centers that constrain a president and are capable of substituting their agendas for the agendas on which the president campaigned. We saw this with Obama, but were given the explanation that Obama never meant it in the first place. Now we will get the same explanation of Trump. The fact that the president is constrained by the military/security complex and the financial sector will not come through. Thus, The Matrix's myth of democracy bringing change via elections will continue to blind people to reality.

    A second consequence is that the Russians, ever hopeful to be part of the West while retaining national sovereignty, which no member of the EU or NATO is permitted to do, will see in the reported withdrawal of American leadership renewed hopes of joining Europe. If the Russians take seriously the New York Times anointment of Germany's Merkel as "the liberal West's last defender" ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/world/europe/germany-merkel-trump-election.html?mcubz=0&_r=1 ), Russia might leave herself militarily and economically exposed by slowing military preparations and the development of economic relations with Asia.

    People can have little idea of actual events as long as news reporting and commentary reflect political agendas and hopeful aspirations.

    [May 31, 2017] THE PRESIDENTS INFERIORITY COMPLEX , HIS ADVISORS RUSSIA-HATING OBSESSION, AND THE PUTSCH PLOTTER WITH THE ITCHY TRIGGER FING by John Helmer,

    Notable quotes:
    "... Brzezinski flattered and fawned over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured, manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. ..."
    "... "it is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies." ..."
    "... "Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject." ..."
    "... Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day. ..."
    "... The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978, was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum since declassified and quoted by Sexton ..."
    "... Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's and Brzezinski's scheme too. ..."
    "... Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. ..."
    "... The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978. ..."
    "... Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth, Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan. ..."
    "... How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer. ..."
    May 31, 2017 | johnhelmer.net

    The widow of Cyrus Vance, the only US Secretary of State to resign in protest against his president's actions in a hundred years, called Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor and Vance's rival, "that awful man". Not a single official of the State Department under Vance during the Carter Administration of 1977 to 1981, thought differently. Most of them had monosyllabic terms for Brzezinski. Since Brzezinski died last Friday, not a single member of his own White House staff has made a public statement in his honour, memory or defence. The mute ones include Madeleine Albright, who owed to Brzezinski her career promotion as an academic, then White House staffer, then Secretary of State herself.

    Despite the disloyalty of those closest to him, and the detestation for Bzezinski of those further away, he was, and remained, Carter's favourite. Between 1977 and 1981, Brzezinski's time with Carter, according to the White House logs, amounted to more than 20% of the president's working time. That's 12 minutes of every hour - no other official came close. On Friday, shortly after Brzezinski's death was announced by his family, Carter issued a statement extolling him as "a superb public servant inquisitive, innovative, and a natural choice as my national security advisor brilliant, dedicated, and loyal. I will miss him."

    What was this bond between them, and why does it matter now? One reason is that what they did together were the freshest American operations studied at KGB schools in Moscow by a recruit in training at the time named Vladimir Putin.

    This was the National Security Advisor's staff during the four years of Carter's term, 1977-1981.

    PRESIDENT CARTER'S RUSSIA-HATING TEAM

    A 451-page doctoral dissertation by Mary Sexton examining the relationship between Carter and Brzezinski identifies the evidence, including documents, witnesses, and independent reports which should have driven them apart. She fails to answer why that didn't happen. She concludes Brzezinski flattered and fawned over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured, manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. Sexton concluded in 2009: "it is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies."

    She quoted Lloyd Butler, Carter's appointee as the White House lawyer so no Brzezinski underling, as saying he was baffled by Carter's refusal to address the troubles Brzezinski caused. "I will never understand it", Butler said in 2002. He died in 2005.

    Neither Vance in his memoirs (he died in 2002), nor his wife Grace, nor any of Vance's deputies at State, nor Carter's staff at the White House, provide an answer. In research by Betty Glad, published in November 2009, she reported "a few close aides met the emotional needs of the president", but the aides didn't tell Glad what they thought Carter's emotional needs were. Glad acknowledged that in preparing her book she was "above all indebted to Zbigniew Brzezinski who expeditiously answered my emails and was very open about his interactions with Carter."

    Glad concluded that Carter gave Brzezinski "his complete and absolute support Brzezinski was one of the few people Carter never reprimanded And Carter dismissed all criticisms of Brzezinski that might come his way." Why?

    "Carter needed and admired the strategic skills and the toughness in dealing with others that Brzezinski offered," Glad summed up, with the latter's help. The need to be tough was a recurrent theme in Brzezinski's briefings and memoranda to Carter, she added. Brzezinski made Carter feel he was "doing big things." Fighting the Russians (Soviets then) was, in the advice Brzezinski presented to Carter and repeated to Glad, was the biggest of the big things. "Brzezinski", concluded Glad, "appealed to Carter's desire to do new big things and act quickly".

    The bafflement reported by Carter subordinates and State Department officials under Vance is part truth; part cover-up by the officials; part deceit by Carter. For the answer of what bound Carter and Brzezinski together Glad doesn't uncover, nor even hint at. This is because it was a conspiracy of proxy wars, terrorism, assassinations, coups d'etat, and other black operations, still classified top secret, rationalized by Brzezinski to Carter and approved by the president, as part of a grand strategy to defeat the Kremlin. These were the acting-tough tactics which convinced Carter in secret, but which the president never admitted to in public. Not then, because the actions made Carter feel he was doing "new big things". Not since, because all of them have failed, with bloodshed and monumental losses for those whom the president and his strategist targeted, and collateral damage for the rest of the world, not least the US.

    "Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject."

    Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day.

    The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978, was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum since declassified and quoted by Sexton. "Much as we want the Soviets out", Henze briefed Brzezinski and Carter, "we are not going to get them out soon We should make their stay as costly as possible and the source of fundamental strain for them. We can do this in many ways, both overtly [and] covertly The Soviets are the culprits in the Horn and we should never let them or the world forget it."

    Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's and Brzezinski's scheme too.

    Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. After Carter's downfall, Henze spent years trying to cover up the role the Grey Wolves had played in the attempted assassination of Pope John-Paul II in May 1981. Henze's version of the plot was that the Kremlin and KGB had masterminded the scheme through the Bulgarian secret service. The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978.

    Brzezsinski's euology at Henze's funeral in Virginia in 2011 provided the cover story that he had engaged Henze in 1977 "to assume responsibility for oversight of the radios and to coordinate more generally our efforts to prevail in the Cold War without an actual war. Paul was in his element. He mobilized his enthusiasm, his commitment, and his boundless energy not only to protect RFE [Radio Free Europe], but to develop also a broader effort to nourish the hopes of those living in the Soviet bloc, including even the Soviet Union itself, that someday they, too, would be free."

    For their combined record of violent failure, Brzezinski had this to say: "Paul proved himself to be a ferocious bureaucratic infighter and eventually the winner – though at times he was even impatient with my efforts to pursue – on the President's behalf - also some accommodation with the Soviet Union in the area of mutual arms control. But that was Paul, my fellow Cold warrior: enthusiastic, fearless, committed, principled, and relentless. A great American, an Eastern European by association, and one of the anonymous architects of the peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."

    Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth, Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan.

    Gregg was one of the plotters of the December 12, 1979, military putsch in South Korea.

    Hoskinson was engaged in Middle Eastern attack and overthrow plots, some he endorsed and assisted, and some he would have done if he judged they had a chance of success.

    How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer.

    For them, the war in Afghanistan, which they plotted with alacrity from the start of the Carter Administration, was the culminating case of what Brzezinski described in his address over Henze's corpse as the "peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."

    These games of liquidating others in the cause of defeating the Kremlin has invigorated Carter, even today when Carter himself is on his last legs. Drawing the Russians on to the field of battle was his and Brzezinski's aim; Afghanistan, after the Soviet military intervention began in December 1979, was their main chance. Their successors in the White House have the same chance against Russian forces on the battlefields of Syria and Ukraine. Though he has tried, Brzezinski is no longer in a position to advise them that if they don't dare, they can't win. Carter is still alive to demonstrate that if they dare, they are likely to lose.

    It isn't sure that's what KGB trainee Putin scribbled down during his lectures at the Andropov Red Banner Institute in 1984. It's certain he has noted it down now.

    [May 31, 2017] In a federal government run like a business ordinary american is a LOSER. They cut you off and leave you behind.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The biggest winner last year was Thomas M. Rutledge of Charter Communications, who pulled down a $98 million pay package, according to the Equilar 200 highest-paid chief executive rankings, conducted for The New York Times. ..."
    "... Mr. Rutledge, 63, stormed to the front of the pack after closing his company's mega-merger, a $65 billion takeover of Time Warner and a smaller competitor. For that, he got a big bump in pay. The year before, his compensation totaled $16.4 million. ..."
    May 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs , May 26, 2017 at 07:21 AM

    As C.E.O. Pay Packages Grow, Top Executives
    Have the President's Ear https://nyti.ms/2r4t6mY
    NYT - MATTHEW GOLDSTEIN - MAY 26, 2017

    Pay packages for America's top executives once again climbed in 2016 after slipping the year before.

    Perhaps the pay surge reflects the times: Stocks are coming off a strong run. Unemployment is low. The economy is percolating.

    And President Trump is not only promising to roll back what he calls excessive business regulations but also listening keenly to what corporate America has to say. Since taking office on Jan. 20, the businessman-turned-politician has met with hundreds of executives, including at least 41 of last year's 200 best-paid C.E.O.s, a New York Times analysis shows.

    The biggest winner last year was Thomas M. Rutledge of Charter Communications, who pulled down a $98 million pay package, according to the Equilar 200 highest-paid chief executive rankings, conducted for The New York Times.

    Mr. Rutledge, 63, stormed to the front of the pack after closing his company's mega-merger, a $65 billion takeover of Time Warner and a smaller competitor.

    For that, he got a big bump in pay. The year before, his compensation totaled $16.4 million.

    This past March, Mr. Rutledge met with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. The president lavished him with praise for a plan to add 20,000 jobs, although the broad outlines of that initiative had been laid out nearly two years earlier, when the merger was first announced.

    This combination - the gains in pay for chief executives, the president's pledge to deregulate and cut corporate tax rates - sets the stage for perhaps the most consequential moment for corporate governance since the financial crisis of 2008. Rising executive compensation only widens the gap between top executives and most American workers. Mr. Rutledge, for instance, made 2,617 times the average American worker's salary of $37,632, according to figures maintained by the A.F.L.-C.I.O. ...


    (graphic, at the link))

    President Trump Greets the C.E.O.s

    Since Inauguration Day, President Donald J. Trump has met with at least 307 chief executives of American companies, 41 of whom were among the 200 highest-paid C.E.O.s in 2016, as calculated by Equilar, a compensation analysis company.

    anne - , May 26, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/would-shareholders-in-charter-communications-have-less-money-if-they-paid-their-ceo-10-million-instead-of-98-million

    May 26, 2017

    Would Shareholders in Charter Communications Have Less Money If They Paid Their CEO $10 Million Instead of $98 Million?

    That's the question the board of directors of Charter should be asking, but I suspect they never do. The company scored first in the New York Times's annual compilation * of CEO pay packages, coming in almost $30 million ahead of CBS, which is number 2. Of course if the CEOs earned less than the other top people in the corporate hierarchy would likely get smaller paychecks as well. And, it might be harder for the presidents of universities, foundations, and non-profits to explain the need for seven figure salaries for their work.

    It seems unlikely that directors ever push in a big way for lower pay for CEOs because they have almost no incentive to do so. More than 99 percent of the directors put up for re-election are approved by shareholders. This is because it is very difficult to organize among shareholders to unseat a director. (Think of the difficulty of unseating an incumbent member of Congress and multiple by about 100.)

    As a result, there is no reason to raise unpleasant questions at board meetings. Even though they are supposed to serve shareholders, which means not paying one penny more than necessary to CEOs and top management for their performance (just as CEOs try to pay workers as little as possible), their incentive is to get along with top management. The result is the upward spiral in CEO pay that we have seen in the last four decades.

    A big part of the problem is that asset managers (think Vanguard and Blackrock) routinely support management slates as they vote trillions (literally) of dollars worth of stock held by people in their 401(k)s and IRAs. These asset managers care more about staying on good terms with top management than making sure they aren't overpaid. This creates a structure where ridiculously rich CEOs, who are usually big celebrants of the market, are effectively shielded themselves from market discipline. Isn't that the way markets are supposed to work?

    * https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/26/business/highest-paid-ceos.html

    -- Dean Baker

    Fred C. Dobbs - , May 26, 2017 at 07:49 AM
    The Highest-Paid C.E.O.s in 2016

    https://nyti.ms/2r4cpYS

    NYT - JON HUANG and KARL RUSSELL - MAY 26

    Here are 200 of the highest-paid chief executives in American business. The data comes from the Equilar 200 Highest-Paid CEO Rankings, which lists the compensation of the chief executives of 200 public companies with annual revenue of at least $1 billion, that filed proxies by May 1st.

    (graphic at the link)

    pgl - , May 26, 2017 at 08:52 AM
    This list is often seen posted on the bedroom wall of certain young ladies living in Manhattan. And the poor young dudes at the gym cannot figure out why they can't get a date.
    Fred C. Dobbs , May 26, 2017 at 11:20 AM
    The Question Isn't Why Wage Growth Is So Low. It's Why
    It's So High. https://nyti.ms/2r5tRMx via @UpshotNYT
    NYT - NEIL IRWIN - MAY 26, 2017

    One of the economy's biggest mysteries is this: The labor market is the strongest it has been in a decade, yet wages are rising barely faster than inflation.

    For some reason, the booming job market and ultralow unemployment rate, which fell to 4.4 percent in April, haven't led employers to raise pay in a meaningful way. That flies in the face of a basic assumption of how the economy works: A tight labor market is expected to lead to pay increases that in turn fuel broader inflation.

    But the mystery of the missing pay raises may have a surprisingly simple solution, and one that sheds light on the larger economic challenges of our age.

    Consider a simple model for how much the average worker's pay ought to be rising: You could simply add together the productivity growth rate - how rapidly the output generated by each hour of labor is increasing - and the inflation rate, which tells us how quickly prices are rising.

    Over the last 24 months through March, inflation has come in at 1.4 percent a year, and productivity growth at 0.6 percent. Those are very low numbers. And in our supersimple model, you may expect average worker wages to have risen only 2 percent.

    In fact, the average hourly earnings for nonmanagerial private sector workers rose 2.4 percent a year in that period. You may not feel like cheering about that, but it's more than we might have expected, with inflation and productivity so weak. The real mystery, then, isn't why wages are rising so slowly, but why they're rising so fast.

    If anything, the numbers show that workers are capturing more than their share of the spoils from a growing economy. And that, as it happens, is the reverse of a decades-long trend. For most of the last half-century - 84 percent of the time since 1966 - average wages have grown more slowly than would be predicted based on productivity and inflation growth. The rise in the share of employee compensation that takes the form of health benefits instead of wages is a factor, but doesn't explain the whole gap; for long stretches, that gap exceeded 2 percentage points a year.

    That means the labor share of national income was shrinking, or, more plainly, that workers' slice of the economic pie got smaller while the part taken by shareholders and other owners of capital grew. ...

    Paine - , May 26, 2017 at 02:08 PM
    Shoddy
    cm - , May 26, 2017 at 08:43 PM
    If there is an argument being made, I'm not getting it. It's all just wall of text.
    Christopher H. , May 26, 2017 at 01:00 PM
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-america-is-the-new-inner-city-1495817008

    RURAL AMERICA IS THE NEW 'INNER CITY'

    A Wall Street Journal analysis shows that since the 1990s, sparsely populated counties have replaced large cities as America's most troubled areas by key measures of socioeconomic well-being-a decline that's accelerating

    By Janet Adamy and Paul Overberg

    Atthe corner where East North Street meets North Cherry Street in the small Ohio town of Kenton, the Immaculate Conception Church keeps a handwritten record of major ceremonies. Over the last decade, according to these sacramental registries, the church has held twice as many funerals as baptisms.

    In tiny communities like Kenton, an unprecedented shift is under way. Federal and other data show that in 2013, in the majority of sparsely populated U.S. counties, more people died than were born-the first time that's happened since the dawn of universal birth registration in the 1930s.

    ...

    In many cities, falling crime has attracted more middle- and upper-class families while an influx of millennials delaying marriage has helped keep divorce rates low.

    Maria Nelson, a 45-year-old media company manager who came to Washington, D.C., to work after college, had always assumed she would someday move to the suburbs, where she had grown up. A generation of heavy federal spending helped make the nation's capital one of the country's highest-earning urban centers. Its median household income rose to $71,000 a year in 2015, a 51% increase since 1980, adjusted for inflation.

    While Ms. Nelson was able to buy a brick row house in 2002, she said she worries about younger colleagues-let alone anyone moving in from a small town-who face soaring real-estate prices. "The whole area just seems to be out of range for most people now," she said

    In Kenton, Father Young said that despite their mounting troubles, he is optimistic about his parishioners. Some of them tell him they worry about what will happen when they die because they still provide for their adult children.

    He likes to say there is always hope. "They can find a job," he said. "Columbus is close enough."

    updated May 26, 2017

    DeDude , May 26, 2017 at 01:36 PM
    Sorry Kentucky; in a federal government run like a business - you are a LOSER. Time to cut you off and leave you behind. If we are going to WIN so much that we get tired of it, we just cannot carry to load of someone like you.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/25/donald-trump-should-close-sell-states-like-kentucky-column/101989780/

    [May 30, 2017] The Deep State is the State by Ron Jacobs

    Notable quotes:
    "... For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism. ..."
    "... It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. ..."
    "... When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent. ..."
    "... At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House. ..."
    "... There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. ..."
    "... When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself. ..."
    "... Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] . ..."
    May 26, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    The deep state is not some enigmatic entity that operates outside the US government. It is the US state itself. Like all elements of that state, the so-called deep state exists to enforce the economic supremacy of US capitalism. It does so primarily via the secret domestic and international police forces like the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies. The operations of these agencies run the gamut from surveillance to propaganda to covert and overt military actions. Naturally, this so-called deep state operates according to their own rules; rules which ultimately insure its continued existence and relevance. Although it can be argued that it was the 1950 National Security Directive known as NSC-68 along with the Congressional Bill creating the Central Intelligence Agency that launched the "deep state" as we understand it, a broader understanding of the "deep state" places its genesis perhaps a century prior to that date. In other words, a structure designed to maintain the economic and political domination of certain powerful US capitalists existed well back into the nineteenth century. However, the centralization of that power began in earnest in the years following World War Two.

    For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism.

    It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. Not only did this mean the US military would grow in size, it also ensured that the power of the intelligence sector would expand both in terms of its reach and its budget. When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent.

    As the 1950s turned into the 1960s, the so-called deep state's power continued to grow. Some of its better known manifestations include the failed attempt to invade revolutionary Cuba that became known as the Bay of Pigs, the use of psychoactive drugs on unsuspecting individuals as part of a mind control study, and numerous attempts to subvert governments considered anti-American. Among the latter actions one can include covert operations against the Vietnamese independence forces and the murder of the Congolese president Patrice Lumumba. In terms of the "deep state's" domestic operations, this period saw the intensification of spying on and disrupting various groups involved in the civil rights and antiwar organizing. Many elements of the domestic operation would become known as COINTELPRO and were directed by the FBI.

    Although the agencies of the so-called deep state operate as part of the US state, this does not mean that those agencies are of one mind. Indeed, like any power structure, there are various factions represented. This means that there are disagreements over policies, priorities, direction, and personnel. The only certainty is that all of its members agree on the need to maintain the supremacy of US capital in the world. At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House.

    There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016.

    Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. Indeed, he would most likely greatly enhance those agencies' power, making a further mockery of the US Constitution. If Trump is able to get the agencies of the deep state to work for the factions he represents-either by replacing those loyal to others not named Trump or by cajoling and coercing them to change their loyalty-he will think the deep state is a great thing. In this way he is no different than every other US president. He understands that whoever controls the deep state controls the US. The struggle we are witnessing between the FBI and the Trump White House is part of a power struggle between US power elites.

    When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself.

    Join the debate on Facebook

    Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] .

    [May 30, 2017] John Helmer Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Svengali of Jimmy Carters Presidency, Is Dead, But the Evil Lives On naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Brzezinski was an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental failures of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues to be catastrophic for the rest of the world. ..."
    "... Carter and Brzezinski in Carter's study, six weeks into the presidential term - April 19, 1977. ..."
    "... To Brzezinski also goes the credit for projecting Iran on to its nuclear-armed path against the Great Satan and US allies in the Middle East, making the sunni-shia sectarian division into a cause of international war which it was not, before Brzezinski began ..."
    "... Left: Sadat standing up, with Begin and Carter at the signing of the Camp David accords, September 17, 1978. Right, Sadat's downfall in Cairo at the Egyptian Army's annual victory parade, October 6, 1981. ..."
    "... Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter, February 1979. ..."
    "... If not for Carter, Brzezinski would have remained the marginal voice he was before and after the four-year Carter term. From the start of that term, in the first six months of 1977, Carter was also warned explicitly by his own staff, inside the White House and working on his confidential instruction, not to allow Brzezinski to dominate his policy-making to the exclusion of all other advice, and the erasure of the evidence on which the advice was based. ..."
    "... When Vernamonti and I had written up our two reports, we concluded that Brzezinski had been deliberately and systematically misinforming and misleading Carter in his policy memoranda. He withheld evidence; mistook or misrepresented what other officials and their agencies were saying; and manipulated the decision and action tails of his memoranda, so that Carter would think he had little option but to do what Brzezinski told him to choose. Our job, Carter had told us when we commenced work, was to spot the fox in the hen house, and warn him before there were fatal consequences. ..."
    "... But dedicated and loyal Brzezinski was solely to himself – not to Carter nor the presidency he had been elected to run. Brzezinski's choices were among the reasons Carter was defeated in the landslide election of November 1980. ..."
    "... Brzezinski is not the only Russia-hater of extraction from the minor Polish nobility to make a career of his monomania. For more of what he and Carter failed to achieve in Syria, read this ; and in Ukraine, this . For the other Polish monomaniac of recent times, Radoslaw Sikorski, read more . ..."
    "... Brzezinski is the only national security advisor in American history to succeed at mesmerizing his president into singing his songs, as the character of Svengali did to Trilby O'Ferrall, an Irish working girl, in the best-selling novel of 1894 by George du Maurier. ..."
    "... Carter gave the power of the White House stage to Brzezinski's voice. The ruin which has followed is Brzezinski's evil, but the evil-doing, that's Carter's fault. ..."
    "... Remember, please, the Blackstone Group was founded by Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson, with Rockefeller seed money. ..."
    "... The Carlyle Group was started by David Rubenstein (nephew of a dude named Jacob Rubenstein, before he changed his name to Jack Ruby) and Frank Carlucci, former CIA dude, with seed money from the Mellon family. ..."
    "... The Deep State is that part of the organized crime syndicate, that is not only beyond morality, but beyond its own faux law (that it enforces against the uppity ones). ..."
    "... Nowhere does Kennan encourage serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets might have reason to feel threatened, "existentially," when they looked to the west .. ..."
    "... The blaming of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what the colonial powers could achieve versus local powers, ..."
    "... Again, most of this is increasingly well-known, but conventional wisdom seems to think that Saudi extremism and terror ties are contradictory to the United States' interests in supporting the regime. But it's contradictory only if terrorism poses a strategic threat to the West-it does not. ..."
    "... Quite simply, terrorism in Europe or the US simply doesn't bother the Blob – its not a strategic issue, and they love to think of themselves as big strategic thinkers, too important to worry about mundane issues like civilian deaths. Terrorism works well for them – its not a real threat and every bomb blowing up tweens going to a concert just results in more money going to the securicracy. ..."
    "... "The Simpsons" famously called Carter "History's greatest monster. " The two guys who crafted that scene and joke knew what a crummy President he was. I doubt it's been lost on Carter. ..."
    "... That's a tall order for Brzezinski which I'm sure he played a significant role. Stephen Gowans has an interesting new book out 'Washington's Long War on Syria' which is recommended by Eva Bartlett. ..."
    "... ""The thesis of this book is that Wall Street's war on Syria was motivated by the same aim: the de-Ba'athification of Syria and the elimination of secular Arab nationalist influence from the Syrian state, as a means of expunging the Arab nationalist threat to U.S. hegemony."" ..."
    "... The blackest of humour contest to find Harvard's most evil. (Long intro about Hitler etc, skip to 18:30.) "Brzezinski is the Hydrox to Kissinger's Oreo" https://thetrap.fm/show/episode-100-chapo-goes-to-college-41717/ ..."
    "... In Carter's defense, he has gone on the record and stated that the US today is now an oligarchy. Not exactly a "pass the buck" statement by a former president ..."
    May 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    If ever there was a man who displayed on his face the evil on his mind, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski, (lead image, right) who died last week at a hospital near Washington.

    Former President Jimmy Carter, who employed Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor between 1977 and 1981, the only high official post Brzezinski reached, said he "helped me set vital foreign policy goals, was a source of stimulation for the departments of defense and state, and everyone valued his opinion." Of Carter's three claims, only the first is true; the second is ironic hyperbole; the third is completely false. If Carter cannot tell the truth now about Brzezinski, after having 36 years to reflect on it, Carter reveals the principal source of Brzezisnki's power, when he exercised it. For Carter was no innocent ventriloquized by the evil Svengali (lead image, left), as in the original Svengali tale. Carter was simply more mendacious than Brzezinski, and is entirely to blame for doing what Brzezinski told him to do.

    Brzezinski was an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental failures of Carter's term in office; the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues to be catastrophic for the rest of the world.

    Carter and Brzezinski in Carter's study, six weeks into the presidential term - April 19, 1977.

    To Brzezinski goes the credit for starting the organization, financing and armament of the mujahideen, the Islamic fundamentalists who have metastasized - with US money and arms still - into Islamic terrorist armies operating far from Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Brzezinski started them off. Only today, Russia – the target of Brzezinski's scheming - is relatively better prepared and safer from the terrorists than the countries of western Europe and the US itself.

    To Brzezinski also goes the credit for projecting Iran on to its nuclear-armed path against the Great Satan and US allies in the Middle East, making the sunni-shia sectarian division into a cause of international war which it was not, before Brzezinski began. That it was not is due to the power of the secular Arab leaders to sustain an alternative to religion for governance. Brzezinski's idea was to target them as Kremlin stooges and overthrow them. To Brzezinski also goes the credit for releasing Israeli ambition under Menachem Begin and his successors on the Israeli right; the promotion of Egyptian corruption and weakness under Anwar Sadat and his successors; and the destruction of the Palestinians.

    Left: Sadat standing up, with Begin and Carter at the signing of the Camp David accords, September 17, 1978. Right, Sadat's downfall in Cairo at the Egyptian Army's annual victory parade, October 6, 1981.

    In Carter's obituary, he also gives Brzezinski the credit for "an essential role" in two other achievements Carter still claims for himself: "normalization of relations with China [and the] signing of the SALT II treaty." Carter is exaggerating the little he did, after his predecessors Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford had initiated and negotiated the terms for both. Carter says nothing about his failure to influence the course of US nuclear weapon designs that continue to evolve unhindered, and the schemes of first-strike war-fighting against both Russia and China which are virtual, if not quite stated US policy today.

    Apart from the reference Carter makes first to his wife Rosalynn's views, there is no illumination. In 1977 Rosalynn Carter had different views from her husband's, but regarding Brzezinski and others in the Carter White House, she never dared to express them in public. On pain of instant dismissal nor did anyone else in the White House then. And there were no leaks.

    Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter, February 1979.

    If not for Carter, Brzezinski would have remained the marginal voice he was before and after the four-year Carter term. From the start of that term, in the first six months of 1977, Carter was also warned explicitly by his own staff, inside the White House and working on his confidential instruction, not to allow Brzezinski to dominate his policy-making to the exclusion of all other advice, and the erasure of the evidence on which the advice was based.

    I know this because I was a member of the staff in those days. I know because I drafted the terms of a series of staff investigations which Carter requested and then authorized of how the advice he was receiving at his desk was influencing the choices and policy options he had to decide – memoranda from the cabinet departments, briefs from the intelligence agencies, and commentaries from different elements of the White House organization itself.

    The investigation of two of Brzezinski's policy recommendations to Carter was assigned to a US Airforce officer on secondment to the White House staff at the time, Len Vernamonti ;and to me. We were part of a group of 25 titled the President's Reorganization Project (PRP). Our offices were in the New Executive Office Building, the red-brick structure across the street from the State, War and Navy Building, aka the Old Executive Office Building (OEOB); in Mark Twain's epithet, the ugliest building in America. Twain was referring to what the inhabitants of the building did, not to the exterior or interior decoration, which was grand. Brzezinski's staff operated in the OEOB. He himself, like his predecessors, kept his own office in the West Wing of the White House, diagonally across the lobby from the Oval Office and Carter's personal study.

    The PRP, a Carter election campaign invention unprecedented in White House history, had the job of preparing a study for the president on how his White House operations might be organized to expand his policy choices, enlarge the evidence available for him to read – Carter was very keen on reading - anticipate consequences, and curb bureaucratic empire building outside the Oval Office. The staff had mostly come, as had I, from Carter's campaign advisors. Major Vernamonti, as he was then, had come to the PRP by secondment and by chance.

    The idea of reorganization at the top of the US government bureaucracy wasn't novel; it most often accompanied incoming presidents whose party had been out of office for a long time and who wanted to purge non-loyalists and find jobs for their own people. But the idea of opening up the president's files and reassessing the decisions he had made in his first six months had never been attempted before.

    Military, intelligence and foreign policy topics were off-limits because of the classification and security clearances required, so the PRP focused on domestic policymaking. In organizational management terms, they amounted to the same thing. We compiled a list of topics for investigation from among the public and private priorities of the new administration; Carter was asked to select which he wanted us to study. About 30 topics were selected; two were assigned to each of a dozen two-man teams. By Carter's order, we had authority to open all files, including those of the National Security Council (NSC). Bzezinski didn't like that; he resisted; he lost the first round

    The subjects of the Brzezinski investigation remain classified. It's exactly 40 years since I last saw the papers. They were secret at the time, but there was a deeper, darker secret.

    When Vernamonti and I had written up our two reports, we concluded that Brzezinski had been deliberately and systematically misinforming and misleading Carter in his policy memoranda. He withheld evidence; mistook or misrepresented what other officials and their agencies were saying; and manipulated the decision and action tails of his memoranda, so that Carter would think he had little option but to do what Brzezinski told him to choose. Our job, Carter had told us when we commenced work, was to spot the fox in the hen house, and warn him before there were fatal consequences. He had been a Navy officer and a submariner; also the Georgia State governor. So he knew about the pathologies of command and control; he also knew about fatal consequences. But neither he nor we anticipated that the fox would turn out to be Brzezinski, nor the chicken turn out to be Carter himself.

    No president had ever been presented with such a stark analysis of his own reading of papers and his own decision-making. I knew that because I had consulted with senior White House staff directors going back to Franklin Roosevelt's time.

    The recommendations Vernamonti and I drew from the decision-making research were revolutionary. We proposed that Carter retain a personal national security advisor with a staff restricted to sub-advisors amounting to less than a score. The large NSC bureaucracy, growing across the driveway in the OEOB, was to be broken up and returned to the mainline departments. Our idea was that the National Security Advisor would be restricted to being just that – an advisor in a staff function. Line command and control, which McGeorge Bundy started with President John Kennedy in 1961, and Henry Kissinger perfected under Richard Nixon between 1969 and 1975, was to be halted because it encouraged a government-wide war for the president's mind, which usually ended badly – not for the advisor but for the president.

    There were more than 300 pages in the final PRP report, including the executive summary and the recommendations, plus the case studies. Brzezinski got early warning of the studies, and then received the drafts, plus a copy of the cover memorandum with recommendations. He saw at once the danger, and went to work on our superiors. The upshot was that on the weekend before our staff was due to present the report to Carter at a White House meeting, and answer his questions, Vernamonti and I were called in to an urgent meeting with the PRP leader, and his superior, Harrison Wellford.

    Like several of us on the staff, Wellford was a Harvard graduate, with an equable, jocular Massachusetts manner of dealing in tight spots. He describes his background on the Carter campaign and then on the presidential transition team of 1976 here . But on the day Wellford called Vernamonti and me into his office, Wellford was not his usual self. He made clear that Brzezinski was furious, and would not allow our conclusions to go to Carter. Wellford himself didn't disagree with the evidence or the findings. He didn't disagree with the recommendations either, he said. But he lacked the power to fight Brzezinski with Carter, he conceded.

    In his encomium on Brzezinski's death, Carter said last Friday: "Having studied Zbig's impressive background and his scholarly and political writings, I called on him to advise me on foreign policy issues during my first presidential campaign. I liked him immediately, and we developed an excellent personal relationship." That much is true. Carter also remembers: "He was brilliant, dedicated, and loyal." From the Harvard point of view, the first adjective was unexceptional – there are hundreds and thousands of "brilliant" Harvard graduates; about a dozen of them in the Carter White House. But dedicated and loyal Brzezinski was solely to himself – not to Carter nor the presidency he had been elected to run. Brzezinski's choices were among the reasons Carter was defeated in the landslide election of November 1980.

    But that's getting ahead of our little tale. Wellford told Vernamonti and me he had no choice but to give us strict orders for the meeting scheduled the following week with Carter. Our case studies might, he said, be included in the tabs to the PRP briefing book we would present to the president. But the conclusions, and the recommendations for reform of the National Security Council, would be eliminated. Then Wellford added an ultimatum: Vernamonti and I would be allowed to sit at the meeting with Carter. But we were to say nothing unless Carter spoke to us. If that happened, we were not to mention our recommendations on Brzezinski. If we did that, we would both be fired instantly. That would have meant the end of Vernamonti's airforce career.

    Wellford added this was a secret we were not to tell to anyone.

    The upshot was this. Wellford, plus the PRP team leader (a Georgian like Carter whose name I've forgotten), the others on our staff; Vernamonti and I met with Carter to present our report. The meeting took place in the Cabinet Room. Vernamonti and I sat to the right of our superiors; Carter was across the table, his back to the windows. Brzezinski was present, along with other senior White House staff advisors of the day. The big briefing book lay in front of the president. He spoke of congratulations for the originality and painstaking work we had done, and promised to read every word. He asked questions, but not of Vernamonti or me. We stayed shtum. We walked out keeping our jobs, as did everyone else, especially Brzezinski.

    Our defeat stayed secret for years. Ours was not the nail for want of which the shoe was lost, the horse, the knight, the battle, etc. There were many other nails, shoes, horses and knights lost, starting with Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, but he died in 2002 without telling as much as he could and should have done. Carter, however, did lose his kingdom, ignominiously. That still stings with him. Vernamonti (pictured recently, below left) went on to a brilliant USAF career, managing the purse which paid for US ballistic missile programs. Wellford (right) has managed the legal side of some of the largest energy businesses in the US.

    Many years later, after the New York Times reported how thorough and effective Carter's reorganization of the White House had been, I responded with a letter detailing part of the Brzezinski record of 1977. I omitted Vernamonti's name, in case he was still in the Air Force; I included Wellford's. The letter was cued to be published, according to a Times editor who telephoned to check a couple of name-spellings and dates. But the letter never appeared. I was told by the Times that in advance of publication, Brzezinski was shown the text, and he commanded that it not appear. The newspaper did what it was told.

    Brzezinski is not the only Russia-hater of extraction from the minor Polish nobility to make a career of his monomania. For more of what he and Carter failed to achieve in Syria, read this ; and in Ukraine, this . For the other Polish monomaniac of recent times, Radoslaw Sikorski, read more .

    Brzezinski is the only national security advisor in American history to succeed at mesmerizing his president into singing his songs, as the character of Svengali did to Trilby O'Ferrall, an Irish working girl, in the best-selling novel of 1894 by George du Maurier.

    Carter is mesmerized still. Without Carter, Brzezinski would have remained an inconsequential academic among many contending to be heard. Carter gave the power of the White House stage to Brzezinski's voice. The ruin which has followed is Brzezinski's evil, but the evil-doing, that's Carter's fault.

    Disturbed Voter , May 30, 2017 at 5:32 am

    Mika, his daughter, continues the Deep State work, in the MSM. And advisor Brzezinski wasn't the only cold warrior around in those days. Senator McCain carries that torch still, from the Hanoi Hilton.

    esb , May 30, 2017 at 11:23 am

    Right you are. This woman is truly dangerous, sporting her famous name and spewing her hateful, disruptive prattle, esp. due to her pairing with the faux-Republican Scarborough, who himself is a bizarre combination of neocon and progressive.

    optimader , May 30, 2017 at 11:34 am

    Who is the Deep State? Does it/they file Income tax?

    sgt_doom , May 30, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Well, around 1963, the Deep State would be the super-rich families who called the shots, notably through such minions as Allen Dulles, (his cousin) Tracy Barnes, McGeorge Bundy, and a slew of others. Those richest families at that time were the Rockefeller, DuPont, Morgan, Harriman (Poindexter), Cabot (and Lodge), Forbes, Mellon and a few others.

    Remember, please, the Blackstone Group was founded by Rockefeller protégé, Peter G. Peterson, with Rockefeller seed money.

    The Carlyle Group was started by David Rubenstein (nephew of a dude named Jacob Rubenstein, before he changed his name to Jack Ruby) and Frank Carlucci, former CIA dude, with seed money from the Mellon family.

    Presently, one of the largest or more powerful of the private intel contractors, Booz Allen Hamilton is owned by the Carlyle Group, last time I checked. Carlyle also owned ARINC for quite a few years, yielding incredible corporate intel from such as they!

    So Robert Scheer, who wrote this book ("They Know Everything About You") where he remarked a bit on Palantir (started by Peter Thiel, primarily with CIA contracts, now a private intel company), and pondered in his book how Thiel came to know Richard Perle, who steered Thiel into Adm. Poindexter for those CIA (Total Infomration Awareness-like) CIA contracts?

    Of course, Scheer is used to robotically repeating CIA disinformation stuff so is unable to pursue simple investigative reporting techniques which would have yielded that Peter Thiel sat on the board of "American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc." (according to their 990 tax forms) along with Richard Perle (from whence he knew him, 'natch!) and David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, etc.

    I trust I have added to your worldly sophistication?

    Disturbed Voter , May 30, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    You know you are in, when you are in the Carlyle Group. Not just the founders like the Bush family, but neo-libs like the Clintons. I am sure the Obama crime family will be invited into that exclusive private country club, if they continue to play ball the CIA way.

    financial matters , May 30, 2017 at 10:55 pm

    JFK and RFK took on US Steel as well as wanting to not escalate in Vietnam. This essentially probably got both of them killed.

    Trump seems to be more circumspect in taking on the deep state.

    Disturbed Voter , May 30, 2017 at 7:02 pm

    When you are the law, like the Nixon presidency, there is no need to file, your taxable income is whatever you say it is. The Deep State is that part of the organized crime syndicate, that is not only beyond morality, but beyond its own faux law (that it enforces against the uppity ones).

    Ignacio , May 30, 2017 at 6:30 am

    I woludn't blame Brzezinski for the sunni-shia divide in countries like Irak. For this I would blame the british.

    PlutoniumKun , May 30, 2017 at 7:00 am

    Yes, I think thats overstating it. But it was certainly during the Carter era that the notion of setting the secular (Iraq) and Sunni States against Iran became policy – albeit after the Iranian Revolution. And of course it was during this period that it became someones bright idea that providing arms to extreme islamacists was a good strategy. I doubt they consciously decided to set sunni against shia, but that was one result.

    But ultimately of course much of the problems in the middle east can be traced to the failure of the West to support secular States for Cold War reasons. Brutal and all as Assad (Sr) and Hussein were, they kept the lid on religious tension and were a vital counterbalance to the Gulf theocracies. And of course the CIA removed a genuinely popular reformist President in Iran in favour of a dictator. Helmer is right that the monomaniacal obsession with blocking the USSR caused all sorts of unnecessary bloodshed and chaos in the Middle East and Asia, although its overstretching it I think to blame so much on Brzezinski.

    And its not all hindsight. I keep going back to Graham Greene's novel 'The Quiet American' from 1955 as an explanation for why so many supposedly smart foreign policy wonks could cause such havoc. Read that one book and so much becomes clear.

    Ignacio , May 30, 2017 at 7:28 am

    Totally agreed

    johnnygl , May 30, 2017 at 10:47 am

    Yes, ideological hatred of the soviets was clearly present at least as far back as the truman admin when nsc-68 was published. That was a break from the original, limited idea of george kennan's' containment' policy.

    hemeantwell , May 30, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Surprising stuff from Helmer .

    A 1976 Slavic Review article by Wright, "Mr. X and containment" is useful for pointing out that Kennan's recommendations were contradictory. While he was nominally arguing for a less alarmed (aka victimized anticommunist) position, the strategy of containment was still pitched at confrontation, and was very cut off from the possibilities of cooperation that were in the Yalta air. Kennan's idea that Russia would, like a wind-up toy, pursue an expansionist policy based on "military industrialization" was, in my view, an ideological spew by someone already submerged in it. Nowhere does Kennan encourage serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets might have reason to feel threatened, "existentially," when they looked to the west, and for reasons having nothing to do with their by then desiccated Bolshevism.

    Mark P. , May 30, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Nowhere does Kennan encourage serious consideration of the possibility that the Soviets might have reason to feel threatened, "existentially," when they looked to the west ..

    Everybody has reasons.

    Given Allied intervention in Russia during and immediately after WWI against the Soviets, the Soviets absolutely had reason to feel threatened existentially.

    But also given the many millions of deaths under Stalin's regime, the West had reason to feel threatened existentially after WWII.

    And also given the centuries-long histories of Polish-Russian wars, with Poland once occupying Moscow and later Russia controlling much of Poland in the 19th as well as in the 20th century - and factoring in Lenin's plan to expand the Soviet regime westwards by occupying Poland which led to the Polish-Soviet War of 1918-19 and the agreement between Stalin and Hitler that let the USSR occupy Poland in 1939 (which included the Katyn massacre) - the Poles have reasons to feel threatened by the Russians.

    Brzezinski's strange, maniacal hatred of Russians isn't strange and maniacal given that history. For that matter, given the Soviet occupation of Hungary, during the Cold War Hungarians like John von Neumann and Edward Teller had reason for their strange, maniacal hatred of the Russians.

    So while it's tiresome for the rest of us to deal with the attitudes of the Poles - including Brzezinski - and the other peoples who live in the territories adjoining Russia, the historical truth is that Russia - whether as Muscovy, the Russian empire, or the Soviet Union - has a many centuries-long history of being heavy-handed with its neighbors.

    The hideousness of U.S. behavior in Latin America - and we can all agree it is hideous - is comparable, but arguably not even in the same league as the way the Russians have historically - and in the memory of some still living - treated their neighbors.

    So everybody has reasons. Everybody has reasons.

    Plenue , May 30, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    But did Brzezinski hate Russia because of the history of what it's done to Poland, or because the Soviets deprived his family of their cushy aristocratic existence? At this point I'm not particularly inclined to think that toffs as a general rule view their lower-class countrymen as anything other than tools to serve and enrich themselves.

    sgt_doom , May 30, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    Excellent points, reminded me of a blog posting I'd read years ago at Economic Populist (not recommended, but occasionally one or two things would pop through):

    http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/exploitation-inc-david-rockefeller-and-adventures-global-finance

    NotTimothyGeithner , May 30, 2017 at 9:16 am

    Except for Israel (that area was always weird due to distance from major powers*), the maps of the modern Middle East are strangely reminiscent of the old Ottoman provinces. The blaming of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what the colonial powers could achieve versus local powers, but the problem in the Middle East is the ability of foreign powers to influence and prop up poor governments who wouldn't otherwise be able to survive and weaken more stable governments. The Saudis and Israelis act boorish because they can go hide behind the U.S. whenever things get too hot.

    *Jerusalem is the last place a major player could fortify before being forced to invade another major player in pre-modern days due to water concerns. This is why Jews exist. Jerusalem is too important to not fortify but is too distant and rural to bother with too, giving the locals a culture that appropriated everything but could never truly be overwhelmed. A Jerusalem sized city closer to the Nile would become Egyptian, and a city closer to Persepolis would become Persian through natural trade and extension of power. If Jerusalem wasn't a dependable city, no one would care.

    Mark P. , May 30, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    The blaming of colonial powers is true in Africa where ocean going vessels altered what the colonial powers could achieve versus local powers,

    Ocean-going vessels but also the machine gun. As Hilaire Belloc wrote: Whatever happens, we have got. The Maxim gun, and they have not

    When the first machine guns appeared circa 1860 much of Africa's interior remained unmapped and terra incognito to the Europeans. By 1915, conversely, every territory in Africa - except for Ethiopia - was not only mapped but a colonial possession of one or another of the European powers.

    olga , May 30, 2017 at 9:20 am

    Yes, and if one thinks long enough – it seems that many problems we are dealing with today can be traced directly to the so called British empire (including the divide and conquer strategy the Brits so skillfully employed). The empire only lasted 200+ yrs, but we'll be cleaning up its messes for the next 500.
    And a bit of mittel Europa humour on ZB's escapades: when you let a goat go free, she'll go ice skating

    PlutoniumKun , May 30, 2017 at 10:15 am

    Incidentally, this article by Andrew Hobbs in Warisboring gives on explanation for why the blob doesn't actually care if its cultivation of Sunni extremists causes terrorism blowback:

    Again, most of this is increasingly well-known, but conventional wisdom seems to think that Saudi extremism and terror ties are contradictory to the United States' interests in supporting the regime. But it's contradictory only if terrorism poses a strategic threat to the West-it does not.

    Quite simply, terrorism in Europe or the US simply doesn't bother the Blob – its not a strategic issue, and they love to think of themselves as big strategic thinkers, too important to worry about mundane issues like civilian deaths. Terrorism works well for them – its not a real threat and every bomb blowing up tweens going to a concert just results in more money going to the securicracy.

    River , May 30, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Sunni-Shia divide happened when Mohammed died. As for countries like Iraq, that would be the Ottomans who exacerbated that particular rift, themselves being Sunni.

    TheCatSaid , May 30, 2017 at 6:59 am

    What an important piece of history this is. Thank you John Helmer and NC for the post. It's of critical importance for understanding why the geopolitical chessboard looks the way it does today, including US-created "Islamic extremism" tool that has since grown and morphed and escaped into the "wild".

    I wonder if Carter will ever learn how the crucial report contents were hijacked by Zbig at the last moment.

    Interesting to learn of Rosalyn Carter's concerns. Is more info available about this?

    Colonel Smithers , May 30, 2017 at 6:59 am

    Thank you to JH for this fascinating insight.

    With regard to Radek Sikorski, there is some dispute as to whether he really is (minor) nobility. At Oxford, where he became friends with Alex (aka Boris) Johnson and David Cameron, including being initiated into the Bullingdon Club (or the Buller as members call it), one British journalist, author (of How To Lose Friends And Alienate People) and free / charter school "entrepreneur" said there was something improbable and even impostor-ish about Sikorski, including claims of nobility and being related to the Polish WW2 general of the same name. The hack said that Sikorski would probably be unmasked as an encyclopaedia salesman from a hick town in the US.

    A few years ago, at a City reception, I met a UBS banker who is in the well known picture of the Bullingdon Club with Johnson and Cameron. Sikorski and his wife, the so-called journalist Anne Applebaum, were riding high in the UK media /establishment at the time, and still do to a lesser extent, and have made enough money bashing Russia to be able to send their two sons to Eton. The banker expressed unease then about Sikorski and his Russia bashing, as if Sikorski and Applebaum were not quite kosher and trying to ingratiate themselves with the rich and powerful.

    Apparently, General Wojciech Jaruzelski was also minor nobility. There's a lot of this pretence about, including the pair in London and NYC who milk having the same surname as the Rothschilds. The UK's current Home Secretary (minister for law and order) once ran a firm that supplied upper class extras to film productions (e.g. Four Weddings And A Funeral) and anyone who wanted to pretend having upper class connections.

    PlutoniumKun , May 30, 2017 at 10:17 am

    Thanks for that insight, Col. You mention Anne Applebaum – I used to marvel a few years ago at her writings in Slate magazine and wonder how someone who knew so little about the topics she wrote about could get such good writing gigs.

    Indrid Cold , May 30, 2017 at 11:53 am

    Yeah. That's the Deep State in action there. The one that guy was asking snarkily if it paid taxes. Its members do. But not like me or you.

    witters , May 30, 2017 at 6:24 pm

    She singlehandedly turned me off the NYRB, which has since continued its slide, culminating in the hysterics of Snyder.

    Roger Smith , May 30, 2017 at 7:43 am

    I want Carter to read this and issue a response.

    oho , May 30, 2017 at 8:09 am

    Jimmy Carter's mainstream hagiography has been pretty much set in positive stone -- the 'aw shucks' president who meant well and did what he could, not the naive outsider who let other forces co-opt his foreign policy.

    Indrid Cold , May 30, 2017 at 11:55 am

    Carter is a personification of America. "He meant well but made some errors along the way and regrettably, civilians were injured."

    sgt_doom , May 30, 2017 at 7:11 pm

    Like that presidential directive utilizing Saudi "help" in shipping Wahabist Islamic extremists to the northern border of Afghanistan and the old Soviet Union to raise hell and incite rebellion? Eventual outcome: 9/11/01!

    Or Carter's abolishing federal anti-usury regulations?

    Or his deregulation of the natural gas industry (involving firing the head of the National Geological Survey, if I recall the proper career scientist he fired, because the fellow admitted to the press when asked that there wasn't any natural gas shortage), airlines industry and trucking?

    Or . . .

    (In all honesty, though, I did respect his daughter Amy Carter - I thought she was the Real Deal!)

    ger , May 30, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    Alas, we have seen other hen house foxes besides Bzig . Kissinger, Albright, even the adorable HRC, in administrations wherein the Rooster turned out to be the Hen.

    Darn , May 30, 2017 at 8:21 am

    +100

    nycTerrierist , May 30, 2017 at 8:43 am

    Ditto.

    NotTimothyGeithner , May 30, 2017 at 8:50 am

    I believe Carter knows. It's part of his post-Presidency motivation. "The Simpsons" famously called Carter "History's greatest monster. " The two guys who crafted that scene and joke knew what a crummy President he was. I doubt it's been lost on Carter.

    financial matters , May 30, 2017 at 7:45 am

    That's a tall order for Brzezinski which I'm sure he played a significant role. Stephen Gowans has an interesting new book out 'Washington's Long War on Syria' which is recommended by Eva Bartlett.

    ""If there were any references in Western media to the Assad government's commitment to the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party's values of freedom from foreign domination, state direction, planning and control of the economy, and working toward the unity of the Arab nation, I'm not aware of them.""

    ""The thesis of this book is that Wall Street's war on Syria was motivated by the same aim: the de-Ba'athification of Syria and the elimination of secular Arab nationalist influence from the Syrian state, as a means of expunging the Arab nationalist threat to U.S. hegemony.""

    ---–

    We support corrupt states like Saudi Arabia that buy our arms and let us exploit their natural resources and are favorable to our banks and oil companies but don't tolerate states that are more interested in being free of American imperialism such as Libya, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

    This could be said to have been set in motion after World War I when the Arab nation was carved up into individual countries separated by borders drawn in imperial map rooms.

    LT , May 30, 2017 at 9:06 am

    Military strategy (no matter what country): divide and conquer. Intelligence agencies help to pave that way.

    They Sykes-Picot Treaty was the source of the "creative" map drawing post-WWI. A couple of the highlights being the creation of "Syria" (resources for France) and "Iraq" (resources for Britain). After WWI, it's been written that the "Arabs" really felt the USA would help them get the fairest deal. They should have taken a real hard look at the Philipines and Cuba, countries the USA helped against Spain.

    Colonel Smithers , May 30, 2017 at 10:03 am

    Thank you, LT.

    France's former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing is related to Picot. One of his grandmothers, Genevieve, was Picot's sister.

    The Giscard family, who adopted the aristocratic d'Estaing name to the disgust of the descendants of the d'Estaing family, had business interests in Syria. The family had interests in former colonies by way of their (former) ownership of Club Med. Some of them came to Mauritius when Club Med opened in Albion, near where I spend the festive season.

    Another family that had colonial business interests are the Levy, including Bernard-Henri and Justine. BHL cashed out to Vincent Bollore before he destroyed the company and used the EUR 200m pay off to fund his political playboy lifestyle that included, briefly, plans for a philosophy magazine in Afghanistan.

    Chauncey Gardiner , May 30, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Re: "a philosophy magazine in Afghanistan"? Seriously? How quintessentially French, and absolutely the best idea evah. Thanks so much for making my day!

    witters , May 30, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    What is perhaps even more French is the fact that BHL claims to BE a philosopher.

    Darn , May 30, 2017 at 8:23 am

    Posted this on another thread but I'll do it again.

    The blackest of humour contest to find Harvard's most evil. (Long intro about Hitler etc, skip to 18:30.) "Brzezinski is the Hydrox to Kissinger's Oreo" https://thetrap.fm/show/episode-100-chapo-goes-to-college-41717/

    Damson , May 30, 2017 at 10:08 am

    An excellent precis from Helmer as always.

    He is one of the very few writing today that can be trusted to give a truthful and thorough analysis of geopolitical events, and to stick to the known facts.

    TheCatSaid

    For those not yet following George Webb's YouTube, he's unraveling and exposing a number of interwoven illegal enterprises ("rat lines"). He's today revealed he's had assistance from insiders in French, Dutch and Serbian intelligence among others, and insiders in US agencies as well. Names have been named, lots of specifics coming out each day. What's the connection to Helmer's post here? Webb today described the foulness of the intelligence agency activities in recent years as having originated with Brzezinsky, with things becoming steadily more foul since then, but in a direction, mindset and way of operating that Brzezinsky had created.

    Webb also makes a side comment about Brzezinsky's cause of death not being disclosed. He mentions it was a murder, and wonders aloud if it was because he'd had a recent change of heart and was about to tell prior secrets.

    wellstone's ghost , May 30, 2017 at 11:40 am

    I've never read the book The Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski, but my understanding is that it outlines the policy of containment of the Eurasian landmass which seems to be the US position at this time. Quite foolhardy in my opinion.

    In Carter's defense, he has gone on the record and stated that the US today is now an oligarchy. Not exactly a "pass the buck" statement by a former president. He knows he got played by the Iranian hostage crisis and the dirty tricks of the Reagan campaign/CIA head William Casey. I think he believes he took one for the team(America), hence his dedication to charitable causes all these years as atonement for his mistakes.

    StephenVerchinski , May 30, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Political Ponerology by Lobachewski. Zbig did stymie its publication according to the author. Zbig, was like many of our powerful, also a war criminal.

    footnote4 , May 30, 2017 at 1:15 pm

    Great to have Helmer's insight into the history. Carter needs to address it, and Brzezinski's recent change of heart as well:

    The main architect of Washington's plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski's article in The American Interest titled "Towards a Global Realignment" has largely been ignored by the media, it shows that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will prevail in its quest to extent US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia.

    footnote4 , May 30, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    Link for the above Broken Chessboard article

    footnote4 , May 30, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    Ok, that wasn't right either.

    Here's the Counterpunch Broken Chessboard article on Brzezinski's recent change of heart re the strategy he pushed in the 1970s.

    ChrisAtRU , May 30, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    Thanks for this. Love the personal anecdotes.

    horostam , May 30, 2017 at 4:46 pm

    contrary to what is taught by the traditional left in America, Iranians widely believe that it was Carter's decision to get rid of the Shah and install the islamic regime which would fit with the general pattern in the middle east. they also believe that it was british agents who spurred the unrest. All this "backlash from Mossadeg in the 50's" narrative is not held by actual iranians at all

    McWatt , May 30, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    Not only should everyone read "The Quiet American" but the movie is also a must see.

    This one book and movie show the world the evil of imperial desire.

    robnume , May 30, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    I agree, McWatt. I am a huge Graham Greene fan; I have almost all of his books.

    I can only assume that you've seen both versions of the movie. Which do you prefer and why?

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author , May 30, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    I agree, the book's a must-read. And prescient, too– published in 1955.

    [May 28, 2017] Al-Qaedas Godfather Is Dead - Good Riddance

    Notable quotes:
    "... Brzezinski was the godfather of al-Qaeda and similar groups. ..."
    "... As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people. He sent Saudi financed Wahhabi nuts to fight the government of Afghanistan before the USSR intended to send its military in support that government. His policy of rallying Jihadis (vid) caused millions of death. ..."
    "... I long recall the Soviet embassy sending an official letter across town - Washington - to point out that one day the U S would bitterly regret having instigated religious fundamentalism as a weapon against Soviet secularism in central asia . Reading of this all those years ago I had a feeling of great foreboding . ..."
    "... He just expanded its use outside of the Middle East and made it far more visible and militant. It had already been used against the secular states in the Middle East such as Egypt under Nasser with the assistance of Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... As to Zbigboy, the chessboard was his manifesto on divide-and-conquer and playing groups of peoples against each other. It is also a mate of Kissinger (PNAC, etc) that no state or group should be allowed to rise to dominate or influence a region. ..."
    "... The USG has been backing gibbering Wahabi lunatics, easily the source of 90% of "Muslim" terrorism, against secular Arab governments since the Eisenhower Administration. ..."
    "... Burying Brzezinski and Kissinger does not end ANYTHING. They (and their ilk) leave behind a thoroughly and profoundly sick U.S. and western states loaded with new generations of psychopaths. In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top. ..."
    "... Indeed, beginning in the second half of America's 20th century up until now, one can see Nietzsche's maxim about fighting monsters being played out and revealing the greatness of his thought. This has culminated in such a way that Lavrov even said that America media has become remniscent of the Soviet Pravda. No argument here. ..."
    "... He was definitely not an architect of American deep state. That was not his job. He was an architect of American Empire's foreign policy of global hegemony. Like Kissinger and Wolfowitz. ..."
    "... Perhaps it worth noting that in Brzez's last year he basically retracted the thesis that he presented in The Great Chessboard . See this counterpunch article by Mike Whitney. Brzez was realistic enough to see that breaking up the China-Russia-Iran alliance was not going to work and maybe we should do deals with them ..."
    "... Brzezinski was a diseased, psychopathic human being that - through the mechanisms of the state - caused unimaginable pain and suffering throughout the world (directly or indirectly) because of his psychopathy. Not by himself, of course. The guy should have been contained and treated like the diseased person he was, not elevated to positions as a diplomat or counselor to national leaders. A healthy society should shun psychopaths, not bumble along oblivious to the harm they cause. ..."
    "... 'In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top.' ..."
    "... There's people with weird, dangerous or maybe 'psychopathic' leanings in every country and every society, they're part of humanity. But when they 'systematically' get to positions of influence and power, there's something wrong with said system: It seems to reward individual psychopathology, rather than humanism and cooperation. ..."
    "... Zbig was an intelligent guy for sure, and it's not easy to replace someone like him. But his teachings will cause trouble for another while - afaik, there is no effective counter-strategy yet, or is there? Can a government win against fundamentalist militants with limited violence, e.g. by isolating them and exposing their inhumane regime? ..."
    "... His worst crime, with Carter, IMO, was trying successfully to manipulate the U.S.S.R. to invade Afghanistan. All of Carter's outrage over the invasion was a lot of baloney. They were not exactly being the friends of Afghanistan they pretended to be. This was worse then later arming the jihadists. ..."
    "... The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world is habitually described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize global order'. ..."
    "... It's all about bullshit + bullying. Luxuriously-funded think/spin tanks make up the bullshit and feed it to people in the MSM capable of bullying (and diminishing the reputation of) persuasive critics of the bullshit. ..."
    "... While I agree with you that he should "burn in hell" he hardly devised anything. With his background and cold war at the time, he was useful idiot for Americans and his masters. And there is plenty of them in each administration. Trump has one, some idiot from Hungary. Brzezinski's "strategy" was simply copied from the others mainly from Nazis, just as was pretty much everything else. If you read a book from Ian Johnson https://www.amazon.com/Mosque-Munich-Nazis-Muslim-Brotherhood/dp/0547423179 that should be clear. ..."
    "... Ian Johnson mentioned in one of its clip a guy from Eisenhower's administration, "devoted catholics" (per IJ) who devised this strategy, and yet again that strategy simply was inherited from the Nazi who used it to fight Soviets. ..."
    "... On deep state - it first manifested itself in the open when JFK was assassinated - preceding ZB. But he became a visible part of it, no question. There is something wrong with the way humans manage power. ..."
    May 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    The ruthless U.S. imperialist Zbigniew Brzezinski died last night. Good riddance. Brzezinski was the godfather of al-Qaeda and similar groups.

    As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people. He sent Saudi financed Wahhabi nuts to fight the government of Afghanistan before the USSR intended to send its military in support that government. His policy of rallying Jihadis (vid) caused millions of death. Brzezinski did not regret that:

    What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

    Brzezinski hailed from a Polish nobility family in Galicia, now west Ukraine. (Galicia is, not by chance, also the place of origin of today's Ukrainian neo-nazis.) The family fled Poland after its German/Soviet partition and and the socialization of the vast nobility properties during and after the second world war. Zbigniew Brzezinski hate of anything socialist and Russian derived from that.

    The 9/11 attacks, the war on Syria, the recent massacre in Manchester and the murder of 28 Copts yesterday in Egypt are direct consequences of Brzezinski's "some stirred-up Moslems" strategy of exporting revolutions . The growth of the fundamentalist Saudi Wahhabi creed, a danger to all mankind , was prepared and propagated by him.

    May he burn in hell - soon to be joined by the other "total whore" and fellow war criminal Henry Kissinger,

    Lea | May 27, 2017 7:24:44 AM | 5
    Trouble is, it's not about an individual, it's about a system that relies on weapon sales and fleecing the populations to survive, i.e, the global swamp. For instance, how on earth can anybody with half a brain not know that Saudi Arabia is the matrix of Wahhabi-Salafi terror? When you see Trump ignoring such common knowledge to push his weapons sales (and surrealistically faulting Iran), you know that Wahhabi cutthroats will carry on being used by the CIA, you know that money dictates how these swamp creatures see the world, and you know that one Brzezinski less will not do anything to solve the problem.

    It is a sick, psychopathic system. It's full of loonies like Brzezinski and unfit for humans. BTW, that individual was a really nasty piece of work, but what about those who listened to him when obviously, he belonged in a straitjacket?

    So, beyond complaining, what do we do?

    ashley albanese | May 27, 2017 7:32:35 AM | 6
    I long recall the Soviet embassy sending an official letter across town - Washington - to point out that one day the U S would bitterly regret having instigated religious fundamentalism as a weapon against Soviet secularism in central asia . Reading of this all those years ago I had a feeling of great foreboding .
    Ghostship | May 27, 2017 7:44:03 AM | 7
    As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people.
    He just expanded its use outside of the Middle East and made it far more visible and militant. It had already been used against the secular states in the Middle East such as Egypt under Nasser with the assistance of Saudi Arabia.
    JK | May 27, 2017 8:03:15 AM | 8
    Well said , concise and to the point. I bought his book The Grand Chessboard just before the Ukraine coup and it as radical as his musings were, they did make much of the foreign policy of Clinton & Obama. A prime point in the book other than establishing control of Central Asia was to also prevent Russia, China and Iran from forming an anti American axis. Also mention of an EU without Germany or France being obsolete.

    Piotr Berman | May 27, 2017 8:57:20 AM | 13
    Just a bit of biographical correction. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not have formally hereditary aristocracy, so while Brzezinskis are a "noble family" with a Horns , this coat of arms is shared by 332 families, some very powerful, and some, like Brzezinski's family, without any estates. Grandfather of Brzezinski was a judge in Austrian empire and lived pretty much in the center of Galicia, now in Poland very close to the boundary with Ukraine. Father of Brzezinski was an officer during the wars with Galician Ukrainians (Western Ukrainian Republic) and Soviet Union in 1918-1922, and later had a successful bureaucratic carrier, becoming Polish consul in Montreal in 1937. There Zbigniew finish high school and studied at McGill University.

    The link with pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists of western Ukraine is rather ambiguous. He surely knew about them, why, his father was an officer fighting with these guys, and later they formed a terrorist movement within Poland (that won the western Ukraine in 1918-22). Bandera made his name by organizing a slaying of a Polish interior minister. And later "all of them" were anti-Communist exiles in Canada.

    One could credit Brzezinski in creating the policy of "humanitarian intervention". It de-emphasized and reduced the support for the retrograde dictators in Latin America and focused on the nipping of the "totalitarian menace" of the Soviet zone of influence. Supporting Islamic radicals in Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan etc. was the best tool at hand (South African regime slugging it out with Marxist movements in Portuguese Angola and Mozambique were not as good, plus, purely local in its capabilities). Back in 1970-ties it did not look bad, in the retrospect, it was the most successful lipstick brand launched in XX century (I live it as an open question who needs lipsticks in this context).

    Curtis | May 27, 2017 9:34:13 AM | 15
    Trond 11

    That was funny. I would like to see Team Bush buried under shithouses in Iraq too. At least one Iraqi got to throw a shoe.

    As to Zbigboy, the chessboard was his manifesto on divide-and-conquer and playing groups of peoples against each other. It is also a mate of Kissinger (PNAC, etc) that no state or group should be allowed to rise to dominate or influence a region.

    rkka | May 27, 2017 10:01:36 AM | 16
    @Ghostship 7

    Correct. The USG has been backing gibbering Wahabi lunatics, easily the source of 90% of "Muslim" terrorism, against secular Arab governments since the Eisenhower Administration. This is a big reason those secular Arab governments became dictatorships, what with the local US Embassy constantly fomenting & instigating coups by GWL.

    ZBiggy just turned it up to 11.

    PavewayIV | May 27, 2017 11:47:37 AM | 20
    I wonder if Brzezinski or Kissinger ever read Lobaczewski et. al regarding psychopathy.

    One of Lobaczewski's long-gone collaborators postulated that any organization opposing a large, organizational pathocracy ('the west' vs. the Soviet state at the time) was itself subject to becoming a pathocracy.

    The idea wasn't one of infection, but more of the almost automatic tendency of an organization to enable and empower its own psychopaths in an attempt to counter those of the other organization. Initially, it's fighting fire with fire. But when the 'enemy' ceases to exist or be a threat, you can't simply turn off your own state's psychopaths because they are most likely running the place.

    Burying Brzezinski and Kissinger does not end ANYTHING. They (and their ilk) leave behind a thoroughly and profoundly sick U.S. and western states loaded with new generations of psychopaths. In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top.

    Lobaczewski's group was not JUST trying to explain why otherwise normal 'little people' turned into psychopaths so readily in the (then) Soviet East. They were trying to understand why otherwise good nations turned into something sick and evil themselves in the process of 'saving' another nation from evil. Their magic cure was nothing more than awareness of the risk and basic prevention - wash your damn hands after leaving the bathroom.

    We have rid ourselves of Brzezinski but have done nothing to recognize the disease, much less attempt any sort of remedy. We go back to our food preparation jobs after leaving the bathroom hoping evil spirits will not randomly make our customers sick.

    Brzezinski's passing has all the significance of driving by a random light post on a cross-country trip.

    c1ue | May 27, 2017 12:18:41 PM | 22
    I have no love for ZBig, but it is far from clear he is an "architect" of the American Deep State. ZBig is exactly like the Libyan, Syrian, Afghan expats sheltered and fed by the US; they are just the latest of a rogue's gallery of foreigners who are useful to American foreign policy.

    Not to say ZBig had no influence, but there's a big difference between running in front of the pack and leading it. Freeland and cohorts in Canada are clearly leading. ZBig? Much less clear.

    NemesisCalling | May 27, 2017 12:28:32 PM | 24
    @20 paveway

    Indeed, beginning in the second half of America's 20th century up until now, one can see Nietzsche's maxim about fighting monsters being played out and revealing the greatness of his thought. This has culminated in such a way that Lavrov even said that America media has become remniscent of the Soviet Pravda. No argument here.

    hopehely | May 27, 2017 12:37:18 PM | 27
    Posted by: c1ue | May 27, 2017 12:18:41 PM | 22
    I have no love for ZBig, but it is far from clear he is an "architect" of the American Deep State.
    He was definitely not an architect of American deep state. That was not his job. He was an architect of American Empire's foreign policy of global hegemony. Like Kissinger and Wolfowitz.

    ToivoS | May 27, 2017 1:54:35 PM | 33
    Perhaps it worth noting that in Brzez's last year he basically retracted the thesis that he presented in The Great Chessboard . See this counterpunch article by Mike Whitney. Brzez was realistic enough to see that breaking up the China-Russia-Iran alliance was not going to work and maybe we should do deals with them.

    He seemed to realize that US policy to capture the central Asian republics in order to drive a wedge between those those three civilizations was hopeless. This does not atone for his crimes but does indicate that he had some grasp of reality. This last article was barely noted our MSM which seems to be still clamoring for the Great Chessboard strategy.

    PavewayIV | May 27, 2017 2:17:47 PM | 34
    hopehely@28 - No. Read my post again. His passing is INSIGNIFICANT in the larger scheme of things. Nothing changes, nothing ends - the U.S. and the west haven't learned a thing. We remain in the diseased, psychopathic state that he (as well as many others) ushered in. Many more like him will follow. As always (at least in the U.S.) we will continue - with utter futility - to try to fix everything with our horribly debased voting process and the thoroughly-rigged, useless 'laws'. And we will continue to fail.

    Brzezinski was a diseased, psychopathic human being that - through the mechanisms of the state - caused unimaginable pain and suffering throughout the world (directly or indirectly) because of his psychopathy. Not by himself, of course. The guy should have been contained and treated like the diseased person he was, not elevated to positions as a diplomat or counselor to national leaders. A healthy society should shun psychopaths, not bumble along oblivious to the harm they cause.

    The organization of the state should be somewhat self-aware of the effects of diseased people like Brzezinski and protect and hopefully rid itself from that kind of influence. It can't (in the U.S., anyway) because 'the state' is diseased itself and that disease is perpetuated through psychopathic individuals inside that benefit from a diseased state. It's a self-reinforcing, symbiotic relationship. Brzezinski's disease was a part of that. Once again, his death changed nothing.

    "...you are just trying to suppress your schadenfreude..."

    As far as his death on a personal level - I simply didn't know the guy. I assume he had family and friends that will mourn his passing. Their pain makes me neither jolly nor happy. There is no schadenfreude - I feel sad for them regardless of my thoughts about Brzezinski.

    "...because gosh it is so totally inappropriate for a sophisticated and rational intellectual to fell like that..."

    Now you're accusing me of being 'a sophisticated and rational intellectual' ? Well... there's certainly no reason to get nasty about it and call me names like that, you bastard!

    jfl | May 27, 2017 4:10:18 PM | 37
    @pw. 'In fact, getting rid of every last psychopath in ANY western government (parliament) fixes nothing because the organizations themselves ensure that new psychopaths will quickly bubble to the top.'

    now you're talking. my only real quarrel with your 'psychopathic' analysis was its seeming identification of a cabal of evil, demented individuals as the seat of the problem. i think this is too 'interior' an analysis. we all have the potential to see ourselves as the driven agents we are most of the time, but its a full-time job, and by definition 'success' is a statistical measurement.

    there is such a thing as society, regardless maggie thatcher's dictum, and individual humans are suspended within it ... and often as oblivious to that fact as the proverbial fish are to the water they swim and breathe in.

    to master our societies requires our collective effort. unless and until we organize to do so we'll continue spinning in our psychopathic gyre(s). what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one? but in union we might be strong.

    i think it's the simple refusal to accept that our 'outside' contingencies are more than a match for our 'inside' ones that's holding us back. we're all stuck in an imaginary world that began with our individual births and will expire with our individual deaths. so the race is continually reborn in 'magnificent' isolation, now fractured into 7 and a half billion pieces.

    something has to be done about this for us to continue and collectively, we're the only ones here to do it.

    smuks | May 27, 2017 5:28:21 PM | 39
    @Paveway

    I think I agree with you, though I find the use of psychological & medicinal terminology in political contexts rather problematic - it usually doesn't enhance comprehension imo.

    There's people with weird, dangerous or maybe 'psychopathic' leanings in every country and every society, they're part of humanity. But when they 'systematically' get to positions of influence and power, there's something wrong with said system: It seems to reward individual psychopathology, rather than humanism and cooperation.

    Zbig was an intelligent guy for sure, and it's not easy to replace someone like him. But his teachings will cause trouble for another while - afaik, there is no effective counter-strategy yet, or is there? Can a government win against fundamentalist militants with limited violence, e.g. by isolating them and exposing their inhumane regime?

    @jfl

    I think you misunderstand something here. It's (afaics) absolutely not about a 'cabal of evil, demented individuals', almost on the contrary. But I like the picture of society as water surrounding a fish - or the air around us, which we don't see nor think about and take for granted.

    kooshy | May 27, 2017 5:54:10 PM | 41
    "He was definitely not an architect of American deep state. "
    Posted by: hopehely | May 27, 2017 12:37:18 PM | 27

    The SOB bastard was the co-founder of trilateral commission, with David Rockefeller.

    Edward | May 27, 2017 5:55:01 PM | 42
    His worst crime, with Carter, IMO, was trying successfully to manipulate the U.S.S.R. to invade Afghanistan. All of Carter's outrage over the invasion was a lot of baloney. They were not exactly being the friends of Afghanistan they pretended to be. This was worse then later arming the jihadists.

    smuks | May 27, 2017 8:21:46 PM | 47
    @Paveway

    The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world is habitually described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize global order'.

    The US has been an expansionist country long before Zbig, cf. the Monroe Doctrine. Just as Britain and other European colonial powers before...

    But more specifically, I really found myself wondering if any effective strategy exists to counter the deployment of jihadist militias against 'uncooperative' states. Other than overwhelming military force. China has been fairly successful, but at the price of a very virulent anti-Uyghur racism.

    Hoarsewhisperer | May 27, 2017 11:43:53 PM | 48
    @Paveway
    The funny/ interesting thing is how this US/ western control over the rest of the world is habitually described by code expressions such as 'maintaining the international order' or 'stabilize global order'.
    ...
    Posted by: smuks | May 27, 2017 8:21:46 PM | 47

    It's less complex/mysterious than it seems at first glance.

    It's all about bullshit + bullying. Luxuriously-funded think/spin tanks make up the bullshit and feed it to people in the MSM capable of bullying (and diminishing the reputation of) persuasive critics of the bullshit.

    My preferred classic example was the role of Thomas L Friedman in silencing critics of Bush II's Iraq War. TLF accused them of Moral Equivalence and the Jew-controlled media made sure that his bullying received superior publicity throughout the West.

    It's easy to dismissively overlook the Jew-controlled media factor but the Jews, more than any other interest group, needed control over Western Media to suppress the criminality of the Israel Project and to whitewash it by flogging the Holocaust to death if anyone dared to mention Jews and Genocide in the same sentence. And the Media Acquisition program was well underway before WWII broke out.

    psychohistorian | May 28, 2017 2:27:55 AM | 51
    @ Bob in Portland who suggested Trump release the still classified JFK files to protect himself against the CIA Have you been smoking some of that early Obama Hopium again?

    Trump is a wannnabe to the upper crust of elite in the middle of a dust up between them and the newbies wanting to act like emperors.....and all is cover for more human suffering and repression except for the core acolytes of the God of Mammon

    And the CIA is a tool of the God of Mammon religion that does what it is told.

    Neretva_43 | May 28, 2017 6:43:22 AM | 54
    "As National Security Advisor of U.S. President Jimmy Carter Brzezinski devised the strategy of using religiously motivated radical militants against secular governments and their people."

    While I agree with you that he should "burn in hell" he hardly devised anything. With his background and cold war at the time, he was useful idiot for Americans and his masters. And there is plenty of them in each administration. Trump has one, some idiot from Hungary. Brzezinski's "strategy" was simply copied from the others mainly from Nazis, just as was pretty much everything else. If you read a book from Ian Johnson https://www.amazon.com/Mosque-Munich-Nazis-Muslim-Brotherhood/dp/0547423179 that should be clear.

    Ian Johnson mentioned in one of its clip a guy from Eisenhower's administration, "devoted catholics" (per IJ) who devised this strategy, and yet again that strategy simply was inherited from the Nazi who used it to fight Soviets.

    By the way a society (if the US is such thing), or the US Gov. generate these murderers and apparently the new ones are in ample supply. That's the nature of system.

    Casowary Gentry | May 28, 2017 10:38:09 AM | 58
    The Poles are real soreheads about Russia and to let one of them be an architect of American foreign policy was a boneheaded move, the man operated according to a deeply held personal animus towards Russia and letting him serve in such a pivotal capacity was a big mistake. In general, letting foreigners fill important policy making roles should be prohibited; they carry too much baggage.

    GoraDiva | May 28, 2017 5:04:11 PM | 60
    For the record, good riddance to ZB, who was no more than a dark stain on most of the humanity. Maybe he'll come back as a poisonous snake...
    @7
    You're right in some ways. Zia-ul-Haq originated the idea of drawing Russians in. Also, the Brits used Muslim Brotherhood against Egypt's Nasser (except, they then killed the US-preferred Sadat). So much for blowback...
    @12
    I'd be curious about Carter, too. Never heard him address it. He signed the directive to entice Russians into Afg. in July '79 - and then feigned HUGE surprise on TV when they marched in (and BTW, they were invited by the then-Afg. govt.; it was not really an invasion). (It was stupid of them, of course.)

    On deep state - it first manifested itself in the open when JFK was assassinated - preceding ZB. But he became a visible part of it, no question.
    There is something wrong with the way humans manage power.

    [May 28, 2017] Deep State could be narrowly defined as Israel itself, its fifth column, and those elements in gov and the media who succeeded in pulling off and covering up 911

    May 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

    DanCT , May 28, 2017 at 11:00 am GMT

    Trump may be influenced by the MIC and major industry groups, but they are not the deep state, which should be narrowly defined as Israel itself, its fifth column, and those elements in gov and the media who succeeded in pulling off and covering up 911, without which we wouldn't be dealing with any of this.

    What I find alarming is Conservativism Inc's willingness to accept the preposterous official narrative about 911 while "bravely" challenging gov data and narratives in all other respects. Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan on down are willing to throw out over one thousand years of Western development regarding the rational relationship between evidence and conclusion, and not least the scientific method, to support what amounts to fantastical storytelling.

    I find it helpful to pull up Google images of these conservative opposition voices, almost invariably cowardly looking little nerds, to understand why we are being neutralized instead of organized to fight the deep state and in our efforts to restore order.

    [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

    Highly recommended!
    CIA is actually a state within the state as Church commission revealed and it has an immanent tendency to seek control over "surface state" and media. In other words large intelligence apparatus might well be incompatible with the democratic governance.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds. ..."
    May 23, 2017 | nakedcapitalism.com

    "In the long run, the CIA can't deceive the Chinese government without also deceiving, in some way, the American public. This leaves us with an obvious problem: Should we believe anything the CIA says?" [RealClearWorld]. "It's a tough question for a democracy to answer. Trust is built on the tacit agreement that the "bad things" an agency does are good for the country.

    If the public believes that that is no longer the case – if it believes the agency is acting out of self-interest and not national interest – then the agreement is broken. The intelligence agency is seen as an impediment of the right to national self-determination, a means for the ends of the few."

    Huey Long <

    RE: Hall of Mirrors/Believing the CIA

    The CIA has a track record of acting out of self interest since its inception and should not be believed. That being said, the public is almost completely unaware of the agency's misdeeds.

    I think the reason folks like Manning, Snowden and Assange are so reviled by the agency is because they are a threat to the CIA's reputation more than anything else.

    [May 22, 2017] The current divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They dont align with the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors, the intelligence surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, are calling the shots and operate outside election cycle.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They don't align with the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors, the intelligence & surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. ..."
    "... The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region. ..."
    "... These are the functionaries and apparatchiks of a stagnating system, which is what's been going on in the U.S. for awhile now. Trump was just too much of an outsider to be accepted by the insiders, and his threats to change the status quo led to the current situation. ..."
    "... This is exactly how leadership selection in the old Soviet Union went on, too. And Trump is no master of bureaucratic infighting, unlike say, Putin. He's just flailing at this point. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    nonsense factory | May 18, 2017 4:58:30 PM | 56

    Anon

    The real relations and divisions in Washington seem to turned into the Soviet system under Brezhnev. They don't align with the political parties and the mostly stage-managed elections anymore. The domestic federal bureaucracy, the government contractors, the intelligence & surveillance sector, the overseas military, Wall Street, they're all playing power-circle games. This is how the system has operated - Cheney ran it under Bush, Clinton ran it under Obama, it's all bureaucractic infighting. If you read about Soviet history you see the same thing:

    The nomenklatura were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.

    These are the functionaries and apparatchiks of a stagnating system, which is what's been going on in the U.S. for awhile now. Trump was just too much of an outsider to be accepted by the insiders, and his threats to change the status quo led to the current situation. Pence, they figure, will be far more amenable to control. Even though Trump has been going along with the standard Republican domestic agenda, he's just viewed as too unpredictable for their tastes. This is exactly how leadership selection in the old Soviet Union went on, too. And Trump is no master of bureaucratic infighting, unlike say, Putin. He's just flailing at this point.

    I'm not concerned about it though, if the grossly corrupt federal government is locked up with this nonsense for the next four years, that's fine. Perhaps state governments can step up and work together to solve problems while Washington gnaws its own belly, that's about the best we can hope for.

    [May 22, 2017] Key points of TIME magazine cover story on the Russian takeover of America

    Notable quotes:
    "... TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article: ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Petri Krohn | May 18, 2017 8:57:21 PM | 71

    TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article:

    1) Social media has become a danger to democracy.

    The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government."

    2) Democratic society must isolate itself from public opinion.

    Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion.

    3) Russia spies on you.

    The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic or not sympathetic."

    4) America is losing the cyberwar.

    As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning to figure out how to fight back.

    5) Russia has clever algorithms that America lacks.

    American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations into thousands of subgroups... Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.

    6) Russia has huge troll farms.

    Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering. Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.

    7) You must trust mainstream media.

    Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook or Twitter feed.

    8) Russia invaded Ukraine in April 2014 .

    Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

    9) Hillary Clinton did not murder Seth Rich.

    That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer.

    10) The evidence:

    Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the ads, where it says sponsored by–they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.) The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm, RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure out how many were Russian.

    [May 21, 2017] Taibbi Roger Ailes Was One of the Worst Americans Ever

    May 21, 2017 | www.rollingstone.com
    Ailes was the Christopher Columbus of hate. When the former daytime TV executive and political strategist looked across the American continent, he saw money laying around in giant piles. He knew all that was needed to pick it up was a) the total abandonment of any sense of decency or civic duty in the news business, and b) the factory-like production of news stories that spoke to Americans' worst fantasies about each other.

    Like many con artists, he reflexively targeted the elderly – "I created a TV network for people from 55 to dead," he told Joan Walsh – where he saw billions could be made mining terrifying storylines about the collapse of the simpler America such viewers remembered, correctly or (more often) incorrectly, from their childhoods.

    ...Ailes launched Fox in 1996 with a confused, often amateurish slate of dumb programs cranked out by cut-rate and often very young staffers. The channel was initially most famous for its overt shallowness ("More News in Less Time" was one of its early slogans) and its Monty Python-style bloopers. But the main formula was always the political scare story, and Fox quickly learned to mix traditional sensationalist tropes like tabloid crime reporting with demonization of liberal villains like the Clintons.

    ...

    Ailes grew out of the entertainment world – his first experience was in daytime variety TV via The Mike Douglas Show – but he later advised a series of Republican campaigns, from Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush to Trump.

    So when he created Fox, he merged his expertise from those two worlds, mixing entertainment and political stagecraft.

    The effect was to politicize the media, a characteristic of banana republics everywhere. When Ailes decided to cordon off Republican audiences and craft news programming targeted specifically to them, he began the process of atomizing the entire media landscape into political fiefdoms – Fox for the right, MSNBC for the left, etc.

    ...Ailes trained Americans to shop for the news as a commodity. Not just on the right but across the political spectrum now, Americans have learned to view the news as a consumer product.

    Moreover, Ailes built a financial empire waving images of the Clintons and the Obamas in front of scared conservatives. It's no surprise that a range of media companies are now raking in fortunes waving images of Donald Trump in front of terrified Democrats.

    It's not that Trump isn't or shouldn't be frightening. But it's conspicuous that our media landscape is now a perfect Ailes-ian dystopia, cleaved into camps of captive audiences geeked up on terror and disgust. The more scared and hate-filled we are, the more advertising dollars come pouring in, on both sides.

    [May 20, 2017] Rosenstein Joins the Posse by Patrick J. Buchanan

    After just 100 days in the office Trump already has a special prosecutor.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency. ..."
    "... Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation. ..."
    "... Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up. ..."
    "... Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation. ..."
    "... Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat. ..."
    "... Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years. ..."
    "... Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich. ..."
    "... Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn. ..."
    "... One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric. ..."
    "... From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November. ..."
    "... Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course. ..."
    "... "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions. ..."
    "... If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here. Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags. This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. ..."
    May 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    "With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation," writes Dana Milbank of The Washington Post .

    What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the prodigal son?

    Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.

    Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.

    Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.

    Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey last week.

    Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take. Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel's office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.

    Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.

    After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the document White House aides called crucial to Trump's decision to fire Comey.

    Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.

    Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years.

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

    Wilfred , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:58 pm
    Any way we can get a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary?
    Fran Macadam , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:56 pm
    Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich.

    Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn.

    Cal , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:58 pm
    Trump set up his own demise -- all the Jews like Rosenstein that he has appointed would really rather have the rabid evangelical Israel supporter Pence as president.
    William Dalton , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:23 am
    The appointment of former director Mueller to take charge of an investigation too hot for Rosenstein or anyone in his department to file a report on, particularly if no prosecution will be recommended, does not presage this affair will continue interminably. Months of work have already been put into the matter by the FBI. Mueller may arrive, ask those agents for a summary of what they have unearthed, say, "I don't see anything here. Do you think further work by you will uncover more?", and if they respond, "No", Mueller might very well take what he is given, file a report saying no prosecution is warranted, just as Jim Comey did in the Clinton matter, and go home.

    The man is retired with honor. He doesn't need to make a name for himself with this or any other case. The last thing he wants to find out is that there is evidence that might result in the impeachment and criminal prosecution of the President of the United States.

    StrategyK , says: May 19, 2017 at 2:59 am
    Wasnt pat a happy supporter of the special counsel investigating Clinton? Now suddenly he is against such counsels? How about some priciples Mr buchanan?
    StrategyK , says: May 19, 2017 at 3:13 am
    And here is a hat tip for you aggrieved folks here. Trump brought this on himself. He could have avoided it all by simply letting Comey do his job. If there really is nothing in the Russia story, then Comey would have come up with nothing.

    Trump has been used to running a family business all his life and a fake TV show as well where his and only his word runs. That is not how the government functions and nor should it be. What happened to the famous negotiator? The one who could make great deals? Who would learn quickly how to navigate the waters and make things happen. This person seems non existent. Lets see some of that please.

    John Gruskos , says: May 19, 2017 at 8:57 am
    Justin Raimondo correctly explains the significance of this development:

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/18/the-special-counsel-comes-to-town-its-the-moscow-trials-revisited/

    Liam , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:16 am
    Wall Street swooned *not* because Trump's "populist" agenda is endangered but rather because Alt-Trump's bait-and-switch pro-Wall Street agenda is endangered. That Pat Buchanan cannot distinguish these is stunning to behold.
    elizabeth , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:22 am
    And if Hillary Clinton had been inaugurated in January, there wouldn't be a dozen Congressional committees pursuing specious investigations, egged on by right wing media? (Even this comment thread carries one such demand, and she is not in office.)

    This is one outcome of a poisoned body politic. Roger Ailes was there at the beginning, and we are all sickened by his legacy.

    Jack , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
    Unfortunately, Buchanan seems to have ignored the fact that Rosenstein's decision to appoint a special prosecutor was sparked by Trump's precipitous and unnecessary decision to dismiss Comey. It was a foolish decision and now he's paying a price for it.
    Dan Green , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
    One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric.
    ukm1 , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:55 am
    U.S. President D.J. Trump is himself 100% responsible for the political and legal debacles where he is in now and will be in for any foreseeable future!

    From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November.

    Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:57 am
    John Gruskos (8:57 a.m.) is right. Justin Raimondo's column today is a "must read":

    "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/18/the-special-counsel-comes-to-town-its-the-moscow-trials-revisited/

    Bob K. , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:05 am
    You tell it like it is, Pat! Once someone has sold his soul to the "dark side" his own reputation with it comes before the welfare of the Nation!
    David Smith , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:37 am
    What goes around, comes around. The Republicans did the same thing to Bill Clinton. Remember, if you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Be careful about the precedents you set.
    Adriana I Pena , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:57 am
    Has anyone considered that the opposition from career bureaucrats is due to their past experience as to what works and what doesn't? They can recognize a half-baked plan, concocted by someone who has only a hazy idea of what goes on (the guy who managed to admit that health care was "complicated" after touting on the campaign trail that it was easy). Add to it stubborness and unwillingness to learn, and those bureaucrats may think that they are staring at an accident waiting to happen.

    What would you do in their place?

    Mac61 , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:18 pm
    If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here.

    Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags.

    This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. He will be held to a higher standard until such time as he realizes he cannot run this world's most powerful country like some sham casino operation he let fall into bankruptcy. And @Cal, this is not a Jewish conspiracy. If you can't see that Trump is an incompetent idiot narcissist, you can't see anything.

    [May 19, 2017] What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; only at the beginning anything is possible

    Notable quotes:
    "... What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible. A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the waste stream has taken its toll. ..."
    "... Tell me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans? ..."
    "... workers fail to ..."
    "... Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists. ..."
    "... serving their own interests; ..."
    "... In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that. ..."
    "... there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this. ..."
    "... 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon: (a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications or software; or (b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries or educational institutions. (9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access those general audience sites, services or applications. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    DJG , May 19, 2017 at 10:20 am

    Definitely worth reading and reading again. What popped on first reading is the description of the rise of income in Poland and the stagnation of income in the U S of A. What pops for me on seccond reading is these paragraphs about tax evasion and income inequality: >>

    One reason nothing happens is a culture of tax evasion. There's a folk belief in American business that if you pay full taxes, you're not doing your fiduciary duty, and your board will fire you.

    Apple now has a quarter trillion dollars offshore that it refuses to put into direct productive use in the United States. Apple boasts that its products are designed in California-they will sell you a $300 book called Designed By Apple In California. But they do their damndest to make sure that California never sees a penny of their overseas profits.

    You in the EU are all too familiar with this brand of tax evasion. Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft have all been under investigation or in court on charges of evading European taxes.

    Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital, doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.

    [Tax evasion isn't just a folk belief: It is taught in U.S. law schools and in business schools, along with union busting.]

    Jef , May 19, 2017 at 10:52 am

    What the author inadvertently points out is that capitalism, particularly the so called consumer capitalism that we have is like a board game; It has a beginning when anything is possible. A middle when a broad spectrum of players prosper and there is extra money for infrastructure and public amenities. Then an end where wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the waste stream has taken its toll.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 11:49 am

    Another reason good intentions don't translate is that capitalism, especially venture capital, doesn't work very well when there is vast wealth inequality.

    The author does not understand that capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole point. Inequality is a feature, not a bug, and so trying to save capitalism while eliminating vast wealth inequalities is working at cross-purposes, and only one of those aims can be successful and guess which one it always is?

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 11:56 am

    +100

    Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    "capitalism creates vast wealth inequality: that's the whole point."

    Not in Adam Smith's world, nor Henry Ford's. True capitalists prosper by creating wealth which improves the lives of everyone around them. Crony capitalists, the ones we have now, strip wealth from others. Witness today's bubble-and-bust cycles rather than the prior widespread economic growth.

    The capitalism you see today is an abomination of the original concept, just as Mnuchin's claim to support "Glass Steagall" is an abomination. And don't get me started on the "Affordable" Care Act, or the "Patriot" act which gutted the Constitution

    P.S. The original author's article is riddled with glaring factual errors, but he has the big picture right: it's time to restore Antitrust Law and apply it to the internet monopolists. And restore privacy rights and and it's a long list. Start fighting now, if you want anything to happen in your lifetime!

    Carla , May 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    The author's central thesis strikes me as correct: that Europe provides the only hope for applying any brakes whatsoever to the American tech sector. I hope someone over there is listening, as prospects here seem utterly hopeless.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Freedom means people should have reasonable alternatives, choices on any product, service or ideology. Today's internet experience lacks that freedom aspect quite a bit.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    Hokum. The "theory" is that it benefits everyone, but the reality is quite different. Tell me, when where these good old days, of "true" capitalism? Back when we were enslaving Africans? Back when we were hanging Wobblies? Back when we had to put nets around our factories to keep the workers from committing suicide? Please the dictatorship of the proletariat worked out just fine in Marx's theory, too.

    clinical wasteman , May 19, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    Another one for the gallery of glaring factual errors: "capitalists prosper by creating wealth". Unless that was an epic typo for something like: " workers fail to prosper while creating wealth".

    As for "the original concept" of "capitalism", in which district of the astral plane did you find that? Apart from his anthropological sci-fi about the origins of money in "barter", Adam Smith generally tried to write about the real world. Just like Marx, except that Smith was speaking for a different class interest, whose "moral philosopher" imagined himself to be. For that reason, "capital" and "capitalist"(n.) were important concepts for Smith and Marx alike, but "capitalism" - a sort of hybrid implying the social reality and the ideology cheerleading for it at once without ever really distinguishing between the two - is an abstraction that neither had much time for, and one that only really caught on once both were dead.

    Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Wasteman – for a start, unlike todays Cronyists, Adam Smith understood that capitalism would not function for the benefit of all unless monopolies were restrained by government:

    "The interest of the dealers [referring to stock owners, manufacturers, and merchants], however, in any particular branch of trade or manufacture, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, and absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1991), pages 219-220)"

    See here for more details:
    https://machineryofpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/adam-smith-on-the-crisis-of-capitalism-2/

    Another interesting perspective is from J. K. Galbraith (sorry I lost the source) who pointed out that in an economy with healthy competition, profit margins are lower, but employment and wage income are necessarily higher.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    And pray tell, who is it who will restrain the monopolists? Our elected officials, who just so happen to be under the control of those same capitalists? Which is possible due to the vast wealth inequalities that capitalism generates .

    Capitalists, almost without exception, do everything in their power to avoid competition. The idea is to make a profit and competition is antithetical to that.

    Lots of things are good in theory, like three-way relationships. Reality, on the other hand, feels no obligation to correspond with theory.

    Vatch , May 19, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    capitalism creates vast wealth inequality

    Not exactly. Capitalism extends or expands existing inequality. It was the development of agriculture several thousand years ago that broke the approximate egalitarianism of the hunter gatherer lifestyle. Even that had some inequality, but not much. For more information, see the early chapters of The Great Leveler , by Walter Scheidel.

    diptherio , May 19, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Hence the "vast" part. I'm not so silly as to think that before capitalism there was not wealth inequality. But not the type where a few hundred people control more wealth than a few billion. It would seem to me, on just a gut level based on a little reading, that whereas systems like feudalism were unequal but relatively stable*, i.e. the level of inequality stayed the same generation to generation, capitalism's dynamics have caused inequality to skyrocket, both nationally and globally.

    *Or at least cyclically stable, as with regular debt jubilees in Sumer.

    HBE , May 19, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    "Living standards in Poland in 2010 had more than doubled from 1990." This sentence annoyed me to no end. Yes, the reason that is true is because every capitalist country in the world worked to smash and destroy communism without pause for its entire life and then internal and external oligarchs snatched up everything.

    Living standards increased over that period in Poland but so did inequality and poverty. So the country got some shiny new consumer goods (which the author seems enamored by) while the populations poverty rate continues to climb. Thank god for privatization ("Suddenly people had cars, phones, appliances" and suddenly poverty surged as well), and the end of those no good dirty commies, right?

    vlado , May 19, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    Yeah, it's really a pity that author of such a well-written piece confuses GDP with living standards. If that was the case people wouldn't vote for nationalist and populists.

    In any case, despite very good performance of Polish economy, its convergence to West Europe at least in terms of GDP (PPP) is questionable as the cases of Czech Republic and Slovenia show. See the article The convergence dream 25 years on in Bruegel

    visitor , May 19, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    There is a reason why people voted for the populist PiS and ousted the liberals who had made such a great job at bringing Poland into the EU and its "market society".

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 10:23 am

    A long but brilliant article that everyone should take the time to read! I want all the techies in my family to read it because it points out some of the uneasiness even techies feel about the their industry.

    My favorite paragraph (although there were many close seconds):

    "But real problems are messy. Tech culture prefers to solve harder, more abstract problems that haven't been sullied by contact with reality. So they worry about how to give Mars an earth-like climate, rather than how to give Earth an earth-like climate. They debate how to make a morally benevolent God-like AI, rather than figuring out how to put ethical guard rails around the more pedestrian AI they are introducing into every area of people's lives."
    Yep .

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    That popular vote comment is misleading as well.

    A previous example was given about a hypothetical House vote, where, in yes-districts, voters are split 51-49 yes (assuming that is so lots of times, congress persons vote 'their conscience') and voters in no-districts are 90-10 for no. Yes votes win by one.

    In that case, the popular vote actually is for No.

    And that has nothing to do with slavery.

    It's how the math works in a representative voting system.

    PhilM , May 19, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Before responding to MLTPB, I'd like to voice my opinion that the OP article is thoughtful and reflects a decent level of awareness of the reality of the world, along with positive solutions that would be achievable in a polity that had the public good as its aim.

    As for MLTPB's opinion on the vote, I beg to differ: it has everything to do with slavery. That's how the numbers work in our system, which is imperial, not representative. It's a bitch when instead of Augustus you get Caligula, but it doesn't change the basic reality of how the system works, and has worked since Ike. In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that.

    Here is the reality: the people in any office in our federal government-basically everyone who lives in or around Washington DC-have the same relationship to American people as they have to Russian, Chinese, or Indian people: that of serving their own interests; predation, if you will; animal husbandry, if you prefer. They will act so as to extract the maximum value consistent with not-killing-the-goose-that-lays-the-golden-eggs from every person, wherever they are located, whatever their religion, whatever their nationality, as long as they are powerless, which means everyone who is a private citizen, however rich, or a small business; everyone who is not a Forbes 500 corporation.

    The notion that the federal government is somehow tied to "Americans," or even to the geographical entity now known as the USA, much less to the values expressed in the so-called "founding documents," is a child's bedtime story.

    It's amusing that it took the election of Trump to bring this realization about; but really, that is why some of us actually voted for Trump: to rub the idiots' noses in the reality of their political environment. (Not me, mind you; because I do not bother to vote: when I want something done, I write a check, like any experienced consumer of government services.)

    There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president results from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million. No, it means changing it so there are 1000 presidents and 100,000 representatives and 1000 supreme courts, and 1000 republics. Those are the numbers that would achieve representative government the way it was designed to function by people who knew. Alternatively, you could reduce federal taxation to 1/10th of its current level, and assign all other taxation to the township, with a population limit of 20,000. Now you would have something that is no longer imperial.

    But since most people since the dawn of history have lived under organizations that are imperial with perfect happiness, the appropriate course of action is not to struggle in futility for change, which would almost certainly do more harm than good, and result in an outcome that would just use up the world's resources more swiftly in the chaos of consumption and war. The optimum course is to watch reruns of amusing sitcoms and eat good food; to gratify the animal pleasures and such pleasures of the mind as remain to aging bodies mistreated by pharmaceuticals; and to die as quickly and painlessly as the authorities permit.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    In our imperial system, it does not matter to the people whether they vote, or how; it matters, occasionally, to the contestants' position in the power structure, but nothing more than that.

    In that case, the popular vote question is not a question anymore (with the current 1 president, instead of 1,000 setup), as you point out here:

    There is a cure, but it is not changing the election mechanism so the choice of president results from the popular vote totals in a population of 300 million.

    I have mentioned before that Rome had, at one time, 2 or 4 co-emperors. You suggest 1,000 presidents, as a solution. That's nothing to do with slavery, except in the sense that we're all serfs or slaves. It about making one's voice heard within a smaller group, having someone representing you along with fewer constituents.

    The inherent problem of having representatives vote, versus direct voting, is still here, as in the example given above. The math scales up and down.

    Thomas Williams , May 19, 2017 at 11:04 am

    Nice piece: Two things to note
    – The Clintons, Bush & Obama presided over this mess and aided in it's creation but the albatross of abuse is being hung on Trump.
    – He shares an enormous egotistical blind spot common to tech workers. He wants unionization and strength for tech workers but seems to advocate for a globalized work force. More than anything else, foreign workers are responsible for wage suppression in the US. Is he saying 'Tech workers are special and should be pampered but others should work for $1.85 per day"?
    – The above points are not germaine to his central theme, which is important and well written. But it does raise questions about his values.

    Knot Galt , May 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    Agreed. Trump = Chucklehead and the shadow in T.S. Eliot's poem

    Jacobite_In_Training , May 19, 2017 at 11:11 am

    " Boycotts won't work, since opting out of a site like Google means opting out of much of modern life ."

    Good .Opt out of modern life. Now. Get as far away from it as you possibly can. You'll be the better person for it. There was a time I felt 'modern life' was the place to be .Now the older me realizes 'modern life' is a sham, an illusion, and a trap.

    A very cleverly designed trap, and one in which the cattle to be slaughtered all believe they are choosing their own destiny even as they are herded inexorably closer to the slaughterhouse.

    Amusingly, although my younger naive and idealistic self had a significant part to play in the great tech revolutions and evolutions through the 90's and early 2000's (for which I will be eternally regretful and ashamed, given how the creations we labored on have been whored out by the pimps in the oligarchy and government) I was also incredibly lucky to have grown up on a farm and learned how to use a hoe, a hand powered washing machine, how to gather eggs and grow things.

    Real things, things that can feed people. But more importantly .how to grow things like spirit and independence that do not rely on any flow of electrons to come to glorious fruition.

    I also so much better understand what that prophet Edward Abbey was trying to warn us about all those decades ago .

    " Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell "

    Tom , May 19, 2017 at 11:27 am

    Indeed. The promise of technology has devolved into Clickbait Nation - where millions mindlessly click on endless deceptive headlines like rats pushing levers in a giant Skinner box.

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 11:55 am

    Is "opting out" really an option? Are we willing to opt out out of modern medicine too?
    Whether we like it or not, we aren't opting out of using the internet, so we aren't opting out of anything this author talked about .

    Sooooo ..wouldn't a better idea be to learn as much as we can about this technology and get involved in its decision making, so that we can control it and make it work for rather than against us?

    Jacobite_In_Training , May 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    I've had that debate before, people typically starting with the 'well, you are posting using the Internet so you aren't really opting out of anything', but thats a simplistic approach, and the process of opting out is a matter of degrees – it is never a binary on/off.

    One can continue 'opting out' of aspects of society, and technology, to as extreme a position as you wish .even back to the stone age, should you choose. (sort of the ultimate boycott)

    Tradeoffs are inherent to the process, no argument there .just be aware that the experience of opting out is itself liberating. You realize all these shiny objects, and expensive things, and
    complicated processes that you have been raised to think of as critical necessities that cannot ever EVER be parted with .may not be so critical as you think.

    Sometimes the tradeoffs will be negative, more often – in my experience – (once you have solved the problems presented by improvising/adapting/overcoming) you will find the 'tradeoffs' are a net positive.

    You are, of course, a creature with free will and free to do what you choose . opt in, opt out .as you will. :)

    Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    Agreed, there are several gradations to this whole opting out thing. I for one am completely absent from any social media platform and feel no loss whatsoever because of this. It takes a committed group of independent thinkers to deconstruct and debunk this whole narrative that you're either "all-in" with these internet platforms or you opt out and life passes you by as you're consigned to an existence of irrelevance and ignorance about the world around you.

    MoiAussie , May 19, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you are very selective about the social media in which you participate.

    Thuto , May 19, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    If by social media we are talking facebook, instagram et al, then I have never participated in any of those. To be sure, this is not meant to sound like I take a dim view on those who do, the point is the narrative is typically framed, at least in my part of the world, as an all-in/opt-out binary in which participation in social media platforms is a prime determinant in who "remains relevant" and who doesn't

    Vatch , May 19, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    I don't have a MyFace account.

    I love saying that!

    justanotherprogressive , May 19, 2017 at 1:21 pm

    I'm not sure what you think you are opting out of. If you are on the internet, then you have to have a carrier – Verizon, Comcast, etc. Do you think their data collection systems are different than what Google, Facebook, or any other social media does?

    jrs , May 19, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    and least they aren't funding trips to mars? :)

    jrs , May 19, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Yea I think the truly open minded probably try many of the internet platforms just to see what they are like and then delete their accounts (this does not need to entail posting one's entire private life there needless to say). Not a lot of open mindedness out there really though, it's all extremes: rigid abstinence from it all, or hopeless addiction to it.

    I mean I understand a priori rejection of the majority of what capitalism produces (except if it's necessary to life then well), but it is a pretty uninformed position from which to criticize (as is being addicted to it really).

    PKMKII , May 19, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Even if you opt out personally, you're still going to be interacting with a lot of people, businesses, governments, etc., that are dependent on the Five Horsemen. Pay cash at the local business, but travel down the supply chain that brought the goods there and you'll run into someone using cloud storage, social media, consumer surveillance data, etc.

    Wisdom Seeker , May 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Regarding "get involved in its decision making" –

    Ordinary folks have really only two ways to do this. One is in their consumer choices. Avoid or boycott companies that abuse their customers – hit them in their wallets. The other is in their voting and political participation push privacy rights, antitrust enforcement, etc. higher on the political agenda.

    It's entirely possible to be comfortably social without "social media". Personally, I boycott Facebook, Twitter, and (as much as possible) Google and Ebay. Google is tough because they have infiltrated the schools with Google Classroom (which has value, but do we really want an internet advertising company to be gathering data on our children?). Microsoft is tough because of the Office monopoly, but just because I have to use it at work doesn't mean I need to pay them any money anywhere else in my life There are also ways to buy online without using Amazon.

    lyman alpha blob , May 19, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    There are other search engines, browsers, email services, etc. besides those operated by the giants. DuckDuckGo, protonmail, and the Opera browser (with free built-in VPN!) work well for me.

    The problem is, if these other services ever do get popular enough, the tech giants will either block them by getting their stooges appointed to Federal agencies and regulating them out of existence, or buy them.

    I've been running from ISP acquisitions for years, as the little guys get bought out I have to find an even littler one. Luckily I've found a local ISP, GWI, that I've used for years now. They actually came out against the new regulations that would allow them to gather and sell their customers' data. Such anathema will probably wind up with their CEO publicly flayed for going against all that is good and holy according to the Five Horsemen.

    Mel , May 19, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    There are two sides to opting out.
    When net neutrality is gone, then capital and market concentration will transform the internet into what cable TV is now, and nobody will need it much.
    Contrariwise the big tech companies are taking over the implementation of major social functions:
    – if you can't vote without the internet
    – if you can't spend your money without the internet
    – if you can't contact your friends without the internet
    – if you can't get news without the internet - this has already happened - just look at us all here.
    – if you can't join a political party without liking it on your Facebook page and following it on Twitter - there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this.
    As I said somewhere else, all this would amount to an uncontracted and unspecified public/private partnership (various ones, actually) and all entered into unexamined. Time to examine them while they're still easy to change.

    HotFlash , May 19, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    there are rumors that the Federal Liberal Party in Canada is exploring this.

    Interesting. Are they going to get us all free internet? If not, I think they will find a big surprise.

    jrs , May 19, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    To assume that workers in ANY Industry (including tech where we know the big players have rigged the labor market against tech workers) have more power than consumers seems pretty unrealistic to me. Of course consumer power is one dollar one vote and hardly democratic but at least consumers do have options and some power. The employee role is a powerless one in the U.S..

    Kris Alman , May 19, 2017 at 11:40 am

    We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified. Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.

    Google would plant a chip in every child if they could. Short of that, they have insinuated themselves in public schools, hoping that every kid in America will consummate their relationship with this giant after they graduate from k-12. See this NY Times article from last weekend: How Google Took Over the Classroom

    It's hard to mitigate their reach. In a landmark student privacy law passed in California (with an even weaker version passed in my state of Oregon), they built in what I call a Google exemption clause.

    ( 8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon:
    (a) A provider of an electronic store, gateway, marketplace or other means of purchasing or downloading software or applications to review or enforce compliance with this section by those applications or software; or
    (b) A provider of an interactive computer service to review or enforce compliance with this section by third-party content providers. As used in this paragraph, "interactive computer service" means any information service, system or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such services or systems operated or offered by libraries or educational institutions.
    (9) This section does not apply to general audience Internet websites, general audience online services, general audience online applications or general audience mobile applications, even if login credentials created for an operator's site, service or application may be used to access those general audience sites, services or applications.

    The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Child and the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy (a group with which I have worked) just put out a Parent Toolkit for Student Privacy .

    Patient Privacy Rights has an upcoming international summit that is free. Stream it! See: https://patientprivacyrights.org/health-privacy-summit/

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    We can either continue on the knowledge economy road, where our personal data is commodified. Or we could fight for a knowledge society, where we collectively access knowledge while protecting our identity and privacy. I vote for the latter.

    When I am not accessing knowledge, I would still prefer to remain private.

    For example, what videos I access for entertainment should private. It's not knowledge I access, just something to pass time.

    That those activities should b protected as well.

    Privacy-protected-society is probably a broader term than knowledge society.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 19, 2017 at 2:09 pm

    And the Google exemption clause reads like a Facebook exemption clause as well (or Amazon or Warner Cable exemption clause).

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 16, 2017] Trump facing shark tank feeding frenzy from military industrial media

    Notable quotes:
    "... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
    "... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
    "... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.rt.com
    There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told RT.

    Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism. A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information to Russian officials.

    RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?

    Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I would say that was the first thing.

    'I was in the room. It didn't happen' - National Security Advisor H.R. #McMaster https://t.co/gVIHigqXaT

    - RT America (@RT_America) 15 мая 2017 г.

    Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell, who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods" that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are the first things to be noted

    Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?

    RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a hidden agenda here?

    JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face, saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move forward on an America First national security policy.

    'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge) https://t.co/x153yPtqVS

    - RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.

    RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from the top?

    JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.

    And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government and carry out the policies he talked about.

    #Trump says he had 'absolute right' to share data on flight safety & terrorism with Russia https://t.co/U6h9FW2ZKy pic.twitter.com/eFBIRhVaI3

    - RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.
    The 'military industrial media'

    The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political analyst, told RT.

    RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?

    John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.

    RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now be said of him?

    JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy, and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones she doesn't.

    'You cannot reset:' No way for US & Russia to start over 'with clean slate' – #Tillerson https://t.co/vC71YbLpQL

    - RT (@RT_com) 15 мая 2017 г.

    RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have a hidden agenda here?

    JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [May 16, 2017] Mohamed El-Erian: We get signals that the system is under enormous stress

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The minute you to start talking about the inequality of opportunity, you fuel the politics of anger. The politics of anger have a tendency to produce improbable results. The major risk is that we don't know how much we've strained the underlying system. But what we do know is we are getting signals that suggest it's under enormous stress, which means the probability of either a policy mistake or market accident goes up." ..."
    "... Third, pockets of extreme indebtedness must be addressed, a lesson he learned working with the IMF in Latin America in the 1980s. "When you have a debt overhang, it's like a black cloud," he argues. "It sucks oxygen out of the system. You cannot grow of it: whether it's Greece or student loans in the US, you need to deal with debt overhangs." The process of debt forgiveness is hard, he concedes, because some people are unfairly rewarded – "but the alternatives are worse." ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Leading economist and investor believes world leaders, and global capitalism, have reached fork in road between equality and chaos

    This is the nub of El-Erian's analysis of why the developed world is approaching a fork in the road. The inequality generated by the current low-growth climate has three elements: inequality of wealth, income and opportunity. The last of the three – manifested in high youth unemployment in many eurozone countries, for example – is the most explosive element.

    "The minute you to start talking about the inequality of opportunity, you fuel the politics of anger. The politics of anger have a tendency to produce improbable results. The major risk is that we don't know how much we've strained the underlying system. But what we do know is we are getting signals that suggest it's under enormous stress, which means the probability of either a policy mistake or market accident goes up."

    ... ... ...

    How do we take the high, benign road? El-Erian has a four-point plan.

    First, "we need to get back to investing in things that promote economic growth, infrastructure, a more pro-growth tax system for the US, serious labour retooling ... If you're in Europe, youth employment is an issue you've really got to think about very seriously."

    Second, countries that can afford to do so must "exploit the fiscal space," meaning borrowing to invest or cutting taxes. He puts the US and Germany unambiguously in that category "and to a certain extent the UK".

    Third, pockets of extreme indebtedness must be addressed, a lesson he learned working with the IMF in Latin America in the 1980s. "When you have a debt overhang, it's like a black cloud," he argues. "It sucks oxygen out of the system. You cannot grow of it: whether it's Greece or student loans in the US, you need to deal with debt overhangs." The process of debt forgiveness is hard, he concedes, because some people are unfairly rewarded – "but the alternatives are worse."

    Fourth, regional and global governance needs repair. He compares the eurozone to a stool with one-and-a-half legs instead of four. The complete leg is monetary union, the half is banking union. The missing legs are fiscal integration, meaning a common budget, and political harmonisation. No wonder the eurozone is unstable, he says: "You can do three legs, you can't do one and half."

    To return to El-Erian's core T-junction analogy, none of the required manoeuvres sound easy. "You don't need a big bang," he replies. "If you want to take the good turn you have to see some progress on some of these elements. If you don't, then we take the other turn." He ascribes equal probabilities – "it's a political judgment."

    What's an investor to do? El-Erian says his own approach, which he admits is hard for the average person to copy, is framed like a bar-bell. At one end, he's invested in high-risk startups where you don't need all to succeed. At the other, he's in cash and cash-like investments. In the middle, he'll invest in public markets only tactically.

    The bottom line: "I'm risk off."

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 15, 2017] The explosive mixture of middle-class shrinking and dual economy in the West

    This idea of two segregated societies within one nation is pretty convincing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A book released last March by MIT economist Peter Temin argues that the U.S. is increasingly becoming what economists call a dual economy; that is, where there are two economies in effect, and one of the populations lives in an economy that is prosperous and secure, and the other part of the population lives in an economy that resembles those of some third world countries. ..."
    "... The middle class is shrinking in the United States and this is an effect of both the advance of technology and American policies ..."
    "... In the United States, our policies have divided us into two groups. Above the median income - above the middle class - is what I call the FTE sector, Finance, Technology and Electronics sector - of people who are doing well, and whose incomes are rising as our national product is growing. The middle class and below are losing shares of income, and their incomes are shrinking as the Pew studies, both of them, show. ..."
    "... The model shows that the FTE sector makes policy for itself, and really does not consider how well the low wage sector is doing. In fact, it wants to keep wages and earnings low in the low wage sector, to provide cheap labour for the industrial employment. ..."
    "... As already described , the middle-class, which has not collapsed yet in France, still has the characteristics that fit to the neoliberal regime. However, it is obvious that this tank of voters has shrunk significantly, and the establishment is struggling to keep them inside the desirable 'status quo' with tricks like the supposedly 'fresh', apolitical image of Emmanuel Macron, the threat of Le Pen's 'evil' figure that comes from the Far-Right, or, the illusion that they have the right to participate equally to almost every economic activity. ..."
    "... The media promotes examples of young businessmen who have succeed to survive economically through start-up companies, yet, they avoid to tell that it is totally unrealistic to expect from most of the Greek youth to become innovative entrepreneurs. So, this illusion is promoted by the media because technology is automating production and factories need less and less workers, even in the public sector, which, moreover, is violently forced towards privatization. ..."
    "... In the middle of the pyramid, a restructured class will serve and secure the domination of the top. Corporate executives, big journalists, scientific elites, suppression forces. It is characteristic that academic research is directed on the basis of the profits of big corporations. Funding is directed increasingly to practical applications in areas that can bring huge profits, like for example, the higher automation of production and therefore, the profit increase through the restriction of jobs. ..."
    May 14, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    The Pew Research Center, released a new study on the size of the middle class in the U.S. and in ten European countries. The study found that the middle class shrank significantly in the U.S. in the last two decades from 1991 to 2010. While it also shrank in several other Western European countries, it shrank far more in the U.S. than anywhere else. Meanwhile, another study also released last week, and published in the journal Science, shows that class mobility in the U.S. declined dramatically in the 1980s, relative to the generation before that.

    A book released last March by MIT economist Peter Temin argues that the U.S. is increasingly becoming what economists call a dual economy; that is, where there are two economies in effect, and one of the populations lives in an economy that is prosperous and secure, and the other part of the population lives in an economy that resembles those of some third world countries.

    globinfo freexchange

    MIT Economist Peter Temin spoke to Gregory Wilpert and the The Real News network.

    As Temin states, among other things:

    The middle class is shrinking in the United States and this is an effect of both the advance of technology and American policies . That is shown dramatically in the new study, because the United States is compared with many European countries. In some of them, the middle class is expanding in the last two decades, and in others it's decreasing. And while technology crosses national borders, national policies affect things within the country.

    In the United States, our policies have divided us into two groups. Above the median income - above the middle class - is what I call the FTE sector, Finance, Technology and Electronics sector - of people who are doing well, and whose incomes are rising as our national product is growing. The middle class and below are losing shares of income, and their incomes are shrinking as the Pew studies, both of them, show.

    The model shows that the FTE sector makes policy for itself, and really does not consider how well the low wage sector is doing. In fact, it wants to keep wages and earnings low in the low wage sector, to provide cheap labour for the industrial employment.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/BRs4VcHprqI" name="I1"

    This model is similar to that pursued in eurozone through the Greek experiment. Yet, the establishment's decision centers still need the consent of the citizens to proceed. They got it in France with the election of their man to do the job, Emmanuel Macron.

    As already described , the middle-class, which has not collapsed yet in France, still has the characteristics that fit to the neoliberal regime. However, it is obvious that this tank of voters has shrunk significantly, and the establishment is struggling to keep them inside the desirable 'status quo' with tricks like the supposedly 'fresh', apolitical image of Emmanuel Macron, the threat of Le Pen's 'evil' figure that comes from the Far-Right, or, the illusion that they have the right to participate equally to almost every economic activity.

    For example, even in Greece, where the middle class suffered an unprecedented reduction because of Troika's (ECB, IMF, European Commission) policies, the last seven years, the propaganda of the establishment attempts to make young people believe that they can equally participate in innovative economic projects. The media promotes examples of young businessmen who have succeed to survive economically through start-up companies, yet, they avoid to tell that it is totally unrealistic to expect from most of the Greek youth to become innovative entrepreneurs. So, this illusion is promoted by the media because technology is automating production and factories need less and less workers, even in the public sector, which, moreover, is violently forced towards privatization.

    As mentioned in previous article , the target of the middle class extinction in the West is to restrict the level of wages in developing economies and prevent current model to be expanded in those countries. The global economic elite is aiming now to create a more simple model which will be consisted basically of three main levels.

    The 1% holding the biggest part of the global wealth, will lie, as always, at the top of the pyramid. In the current phase, frequent and successive economic crises, not only assist on the destruction of social state and uncontrolled massive privatizations, but also, on the elimination of the big competitors.

    In the middle of the pyramid, a restructured class will serve and secure the domination of the top. Corporate executives, big journalists, scientific elites, suppression forces. It is characteristic that academic research is directed on the basis of the profits of big corporations. Funding is directed increasingly to practical applications in areas that can bring huge profits, like for example, the higher automation of production and therefore, the profit increase through the restriction of jobs.

    The base of the pyramid will be consisted by the majority of workers in global level, with restricted wages, zero labor rights, and nearly zero opportunities for activities other than consumption.

    This type of dual economy with the rapid extinction of middle class may bring dangerous instability because of the vast vacuum created between the elites and the masses. That's why the experiment is implemented in Greece, so that the new conditions to be tested. The last seven years, almost every practice was tested: psychological warfare, uninterrupted propaganda, financial coups, permanent threat for a sudden death of the economy, suppression measures, in order to keep the masses subservient, accepting the new conditions.

    The establishment exploits the fact that the younger generations have no collective memories of big struggles. Their rights were taken for granted and now they accept that these must be taken away for the sake of the investors who will come to create jobs. These generations were built and raised according to the standards of the neoliberal regime 'Matrix'.

    Yet, it is still not certain that people will accept this Dystopia so easily. The first signs can be seen already as recently, French workers seized factory and threatened to blow it up in protest over possible closure . Macron may discover soon that it will be very difficult to find the right balance in order to finish the job for the elites. And then, neither Brussels nor Berlin will be able to prevent the oncoming chaos in Europe and the West.

    Read also:

    [May 07, 2017] Growing Inequality Under Global Capitalism naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development and Anis Chowdhury, former Professor of Economics, University of Western Sydney, who held various senior United Nations positions in New York and Bangkok. Originally published at Inter Press Service ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    May 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. Even though much of the material in this post will be familiar to regular readers, some points are worth emphasizing. One defense regularly made of globalization is that even though it has lowered income of less-skilled workers in advanced economies (and even those of some skilled workers), laborers in emerging economies have gained. This picture is simplistic. As Joseph Stiglitz pointed out years ago, and the picture hasn't changed much, China has captured all of the income gains by emerging economies. Poverty in developing economies ex China hasn't budged. And the authors stress that inequality has exploded in China.

    By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development and Anis Chowdhury, former Professor of Economics, University of Western Sydney, who held various senior United Nations positions in New York and Bangkok. Originally published at Inter Press Service

    Income and wealth inequality has increased in recent decades, but recognition of the role of economic liberalization and globalization in exacerbating inequality has never been so widespread. The guardians of global capitalism are nervous, yet little has been done to check, let alone reverse the underlying forces.

    Global Elite Alarmed by Growing Inequality

    The World Economic Forum (WEF) has described severe income inequality as the biggest risk facing the world. WEF founder Klaus Schwab has observed, "We have too large a disparity in the world; we need more inclusiveness If we continue to have un-inclusive growth and we continue with the unemployment situation, particularly youth unemployment, our global society is not sustainable."

    Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director, told political and business leaders at the WEF, "in far too many countries the benefits of growth are being enjoyed by far too few people. This is not a recipe for stability and sustainability." Similarly, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has warned that failure to tackle inequality risked causing social unrest. "It's going to erupt to a great extent because of these inequalities."

    In the same vein, the influential US Council of Foreign Relations' journal, Foreign Affairs , carried an article cautioning, "Inequality is indeed increasing almost everywhere in the post-industrial capitalist world . if left unaddressed, rising inequality and economic insecurity can erode social order and generate a populist backlash against the capitalist system at large."

    Much Ado About Nothing?

    Increasingly, the main benefits of economic growth are being captured by a tiny elite. Despite global economic stagnation for almost a decade, the number of billionaires in the world has increased to a record 2,199. The richest one per cent of the world's population now has as much wealth as the rest of the world combined. The world's eight richest people have as much wealth as the poorer half.

    In India, the number of billionaires has increased at least tenfold in the past decade. India now has 111 billionaires, third in the world by country. The largest number of the world's abject poor also live in the same country - over 425 million, a third of the world's poor, and well over a third of the country's population.

    Africa had a resource boom for a decade until 2014, but most people there still struggle daily for food, clean water and health care. Meanwhile, the number of people living in extreme poverty, according to the World Bank, has grown substantially to at least 330 million from 280 million in 1990!

    In Europe, poor people bore the brunt of draconian austerity policies while bank bailouts mainly benefited the moneyed. 122.3 million people, or 24.4 per cent of the population in the EU-28, are at risk of poverty. Between 2009 and 2013, the number of Europeans without enough money to heat their homes or cope with unforeseen expenses, i.e., living with "severe material deprivation," rose by 7.5 million to 50 million people, while the continent is home to 342 billionaires!

    In the United States, the income share of the top one per cent is at its highest level since the eve of the Great Depression, almost nine decades ago. The top 0.01 per cent, or 14,000 American families, own 22.2 per cent of its wealth, while the bottom 90 per cent, over 133 million families, own a meagre four per cent of the nation's wealth. The top five per cent of households increased their share of US wealth, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. Meanwhile, the richest one per cent tripled their share of US income within a generation.

    This unprecedented wealth concentration and the corresponding deprivation of others have generated backlashes, arguably contributing to the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election, the Brexit referendum, the strength of Marine Le Pen in France, the Alternative for Germany, and the ascendance of the Hindutva right in secular India.

    "Communist" China and Inequality

    Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown rapidly as inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly communist-ruled country. China has supplied cheaper consumer goods to the world, checking inflation and improving living standards for many. Part of its huge trade surplus - due to relatively low, albeit recently rising wages - has been recycled in financial markets, mainly in the US, which helped expand credit at low interest rates there.

    Thus, cheap consumer products and cheap credit have enabled the slowly shrinking "middle class" in the West to mitigate the downward pressure on their living standards despite stagnating or falling real wages and mounting personal and household debt.

    China's export-led development on the basis of low wages has sharply increased income inequality in the world's largest country for more than three decades. Beijing is the new "billionaire capital of the world," no longer New York. China now has 594 billionaires, 33 more than in the US!

    Since the 1980s, income inequality in China has risen faster than most! China now has one of the world's highest levels of income inequality, rising mainly in the last three decades. The richest one per cent of households own a third of the country's wealth, while the poorest quarter own only one per cent. China's Gini coefficient for income rose to 0.49 in 2012 from 0.3 over three decades before when it was one of the most egalitarian countries in the world. Another survey put China's income Gini at 0.61 in 2010, greatly exceeding the US's 0.45!

    12 0 24 5 0 This entry was posted in Africa , Banana republic , China , Economic fundamentals , Free markets and their discontents , Globalization , Guest Post , Income disparity , India on May 6, 2017 by Yves Smith .
    Trade now with TradeStation – Highest rated for frequent traders
    Subscribe to Post Comments 55 comments MoiAussie , May 6, 2017 at 4:16 am

    Global Elite Alarmed by Growing Inequality is a rather misleading, or rather, abbreviated, subhead. On suspects it should be Global Elite Alarmed that Growing Inequality may not be Sustainable .

    Is there any evidence anywhere that Global Elites would want voluntarily to reduce inequality?

    cnchal , May 6, 2017 at 5:51 am

    The reality is the global elite are alarmed that inequality isn't high enough, and fear having to give up a single dollar to the poors. There is no measuring stick big enough to measure the elite's greed.

    Apple workers in China are so abused and underpaid, I am waiting for a factory rampage. When your sweat is stolen by Tim Cook colluding with the criminal leaders of China to steal all your effort for themselves, that would drive anyone nuts. Buying an Apple product means thousands of Chinese slaves are tortured.

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 8:44 am

    Proof: 1% in US keep on arguing how they only collect 20% of income but pay 40% of taxes.

    They don't seem to realize that if their income had stayed at 30x the lowest paid instead of 300x, the lower paid would actually be paying more taxes.

    Second, the rich typically have low incomes relative to assets so if taxes included assets, it would be interesting to see how that proportion would change.

    Furthermore, why should someone get waterfront property just because of their birthright and have the audacity to tell the younger ones to pick themselves up by their bootstraps? If society does not fix the problem, Mother Nature will.

    cnchal , May 6, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Chinese labor get's shot if they were to try and organize a fight for better working conditions. The elite here and there conspire with each other to profit from it.

    Here is proof:

    Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown rapidly as inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly communist-ruled country. China has supplied cheaper consumer goods to the world, checking inflation and improving living standards for many . Part of its huge trade surplus - due to relatively low , albeit recently rising wages - has been recycled in financial markets, mainly in the US, which helped expand credit at low interest rates there.

    Thus, cheap consumer products and cheap credit have enabled the slowly shrinking "middle class" in the West to mitigate the downward pressure on their living standards despite stagnating or falling real wages and mounting personal and household debt.

    China's export-led development on the basis of low wages has sharply increased income inequality in the world's largest country for more than three decades. Beijing is the new "billionaire capital of the world," no longer New York. China now has 594 billionaires, 33 more than in the US!

    There are suicide prevention nets in the stairwells and around the building where Apple products are made. And they make really shitty money, compared to what they put out.

    Apple has what, a fifth of a trillion stashed "offshore". Where did it come from? Right out of the sweat of those workers.

    There is a fundamental difference between our politicians and Chinese politicians.

    In our system, narcissists are elected and are then surrounded by psychopaths, in China it's a total brawl all the way to the top, so they skip the narcissist step.

    sgt_doom , May 6, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    Nicely stated!

    dontknowitall , May 6, 2017 at 5:56 am

    One way that inequality can be mitigated is by increasing government spending to create jobs and improve infrastructure but forecasts of the benefits can be manipulated to defeat such proposals by usually showing that less than a dollar of GDP growth is returned for each dollar of spending. Economists at North Carolina Sate U. have recently created an agnostic model stripped of partisan bias of how government spending benefits GDP and they show about $1.30 of GDP growth for each dollar spent. Let me quote (the original paper is paywalled):

    " most widely used model for predicting how U.S. government spending affects gross domestic product (GDP) can be rigged using theoretical assumptions to control forecasts of how government spending will stimulate the economy Based on their observations, the researchers then developed an agnostic model, which was designed to avoid those tweaks that predispose the results to support a particular argument We found that the agnostic model predicts roughly $1.30 in near-term GDP growth for each $1 in spending."

    https://phys.org/news/2017-05-impact-easily.html
    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20111196&&from=f

    sgt_doom , May 6, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    I think most of us realize the details of how to decrease inequality - just as most of us thinking people realize that inequality increases unemployment which increases inequality - so your comment falls upon those who are tired with the oblivious who seem ignorant that the problem is not with the HOW, it is with that bloody revolution which has yet to come!

    cripes , May 6, 2017 at 6:48 am

    Yeah, I've always wondered what factors, besides sheer greed, elite inbreeding and stupidity, are responsible for the wide range of national GINI rankings.

    According to the CIA anyway, among the most equal are affluent Germany (27.0) France (30.1) and Sweden (24.0), but also not-rich Albania (29.0) Romania (27.3) and, most equal, Slovenia at 23.7.

    The European Union as a whole is rated GINA 30.1. The handful of non-European countries that crack the more equal list, strangely are, in ascending order Kazakstan (28.9) Pakistan (29.6) South Korea (30.2) and Australia (30.3).

    Geographically, there is a swath of more-equal economies stretching from Western Europe to North Africa, South-west Asia (middle east) through India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Japan. This tends towards the idea that old-world, culturally cohesive societies have an interest in maintaining economies that promote inclusion and common interest. The Muslim barbarians and European socialists are less prone to exploiting their neighbors or throwing them overboard than we are, although Washington is working hard to remedy this situation.

    Canada and Australia have wisely plotted a course closer to their European forbears than their American cousins.

    Southern Africa, Latin America starting at the Rio Grande, China, Russia (bordering much more equal Kazakhstan?) and of course the USA are the heartlands of inequality. The common thread here, I presume, is their colonial heritage.

    There may be something to the argument about homogeneous societies having a cultural advantage and all that, but England (32.4) and France, hardly exemplars of racial tranquility, or Australia, India and Canada seem to say otherwise.

    The interesting thing seen easily on the map is that low income "developing" countries, with exceptions like Hong Kong (53.7) have a large preponderance of high GINI scores.

    Middle-income China, Russia and Brazil, are joined by the always exceptional United States as continental empires with extreme inequality.

    Readers thoughts?

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 9:09 am

    I'm not sure Canada can survive without socialism.

    If we use current economic productivity and efficiency models, it would seem that North-South activity would make more sense than East-West. So from my perspective, if we want Canada to work, we have to share and accept higher costs and less material wealth to reach that goal.

    The other issue we are facing capital from China let's say there are 10 million Chinese (we only have something like 12m households) who want to get their money out and a few million Canadians who want to get rich selling their house, you can imagine what kind of havoc the zirp/bailout/EZ money policies have unleashed on small attractive countries like Canada.

    And our leaders are still denying the impact of foreign capital on our real estate market. Because these are the people who live in the overvalued urban areas and quite happy to see their home values soar.

    IMO, protectionism will need to rear its ugly head.

    Massinissa , May 6, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    I'm not sure anyplace can survive without socialism if capitalism doesn't try and fix itself again like in the 30s. Which it might not, this time.

    sgt_doom , May 6, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Remember, please, GINI scores do not accurately represent growing inequality within countries, they just supposedly represent inequality BETWEEN countries.

    knowbuddhau , May 6, 2017 at 7:08 am

    >>>"Meanwhile, China has increasingly participated in and grown rapidly as inequality has risen sharply in the ostensibly communist-ruled country."

    Participated in what?

    We're the bottom of the barrel. They're the cream on top. But the vessel is being overpressurized, accidentally on purpose. How much more can we take before the Great Blowout?

    cripes , May 6, 2017 at 7:20 am

    Oooops:

    The common thread (to the US) with unequal China and Russia is not their "colonial heritage" but their empire-sized geography.

    Also:

    There is also the matter of GINI inequality within national borders, seen here: http://dev.null.org/scrapbook/2009/0420_us_gini.jpg

    Surprisingly, but not to me, is that New York State holds the worst GINA rank at 49.9, a fact due not solely to the density of high income jerk-offs like Trump who claim residence there, but to the density of truly impoverished people that still remain in the five boroughs of NYC and the abandoned former industrial cities of upstate New York.

    Although they report a very high 21% "poverty" rate, NYC's Commission on Equal Opportunity reports in 2012 that 40% of New York City families subsisted on less than $34,000 annually. Anyone familiar with the absurd official poverty thresholds, or the punishing cost of living in NYC for working people, well, do your own math.

    Suffice it to say, national GINI rankings tell only part of the story.

    There is a whole other realm of study in qualifying GINI effects by state, county, zip code or tract level.

    UserFriendly , May 6, 2017 at 8:48 am

    Bernie did best in the most egalitarian states interesting. Rich people vote more and if you are rich in an unequal state Bernie must sound like Satan.

    MoiAussie , May 6, 2017 at 10:41 am

    I guess you meant more rich people vote , but there're hidden truths in rich people vote more which are worth unpacking.

    – In the US system, money talks. Rich people donate to support their future benefactors, which buys MSM speech and advertising that sways gullible votes to their side.

    – Elected representatives are often in it to get rich, and are certainly bought and paid for. So rich people get the votes on the legislation that matters to them. The rest get representatives who simply don't deliver on the policies and promises that they ran on. Obama.

    Susan the other , May 6, 2017 at 11:10 am

    I was also thinking that broad data like the above hide the obvious solution. But I don't know how working from localities upward from towns to counties to cities to states would technically work to redistribute income. I know how they redistribute state tax money for the state's dept of education – they pool the money and distribute it per pupil evenly across all districts. The poorest districts getting the most help. So redistribution of income via taxes would have to come from the tax authority, i.e. the state. But that leaves local resources and solutions unused. As unused as they are disenfranchised from neoliberal globalization. It is just those very local communities that could be enlisted and employed to clean up the environment and do it sustainably. The state could subsidize cleanup. Organic farming. Artisans of all sorts. The fact that there is such inequality, and the fact that we are awash in garbage, pollution, and climate change seem to go hand in glove; and the mess is totally reversible. But start at the local level.

    HopeLB , May 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    Fresh water and arable land are becoming scarce and climate change will only exacerbate the trend. People could be put to useful, gratifying work using that suburban farmer's idea. Those large subsurban yards covered in meticulous lawns could be put to use feeding the world.

    sgt_doom , May 6, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    Thanks for your great remarks and comments - should be highly informative to many.

    Also important to note - given the incredibly shrinking middle class in America (which might not always appear that way in the purposely faulty numerical data presented - or misrepresented) - that it is always worse than it appears since such data derives from the Census Bureau, which tracks ONLY wages, not income streams from capital gains (such as bonds and stocks, etc.). This (purposely) skews the size of the middle class much larger than it actually is - and it has been dramatically shrinking in America - as those rich and super-rich show up listed as in the middle class, economically.

    Also, important to keep in mind that much supposed "data" comes from the National Bureau of Economics Research (NBER), which has as an emeritus , one Martin Feldstein from Harvard. Said Feldstein was a director at HCA when they were hit with the largest out-of-court penalty settlement for their Medicare/Medicaid fraud back in the 1990s. Said Feldstein was a director at Eli Lilly when they were hit with the then-largest criminal penalty for fraudulent marketing of their drugs. Said Feldstein was a director at AIG/Financial Products when they had to be bailed out by the US government for partaking in the largest insurance swindle in US history, so EVERYTHING coming out of the NBER should be considered suspect, given the character of its crew!

    Anonymous2 , May 6, 2017 at 7:23 am

    I wonder about Gini scores for the UK. A lot of residential central London is now owned by extremely rich people like Saudi princes and Russian oligarchs. My suspicion is that they are excluded from the figures. Their impact on the local economy by pricing just about everyone else out of this market is, however, non-trivial.

    sgt_doom , May 6, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    Yes, this site has carried some excellent articles in the past about this subject, GINI essentially tracks the supposed inequality among countries, not WITHIN the individual countries (or at least it fails to do so).

    Something with is as appropriate to the UK as it is to America, a quote from an outstanding book, Glass House , by Brian Alexander:

    "Corporate elites said they needed free-trade agreements, so they got them. Manufacturers said they needed tax breaks and public money incentives in order to keep their plants operating in the USA, so they got them. Banks and financiers needed looser regulations, so they got them. Employers said they needed weaker unions – or no unions at all – so they got them. Private equity firms said they needed carried interest and secrecy, so they got them. What did Lancaster and a hundred other town like it get? Job losses, slashed wages, poor civic leadership, social dysfunction, drugs."

    Michael C. , May 6, 2017 at 8:12 am

    To alter James Carville's noted quote, "It's capitalism, stupid." Or at least the way it is configured so that short term profit for the ownership class takes precedence over the immoral destruction of societies and mother earth.

    Kalen , May 6, 2017 at 9:33 am

    Rampant inequality, joblessness, homelessness is not a shameful aspect of unfortunate excesses of few or tragic side effect of modern mass capitalism but in fact it is its best feature, in fact absolutely necessary even critical to the success of this unbelievable confidence scheme callled capitalist socioeconomics enhanced by debt based monetary system and fiat currency.

    And we all believe in that sham. We all believe in the value system and valuation of our commodified social life by somehow divine authority of few puny lowlifes in the ruling elite who are laughing at us all the way to the empty bank they own and we are indebted to.

    As long as we believe that we work for money, a useless symbol of our total dependence, not for food, sustenance and shelter, as long as we believe we need money that cannot be eaten or utilized as a material for building shelter but can best be used as an emergency bathroom tissue substitute, we are lost begging for mercy enslaving ourselves to strangers for nothing but an illusion that breaths and promotes rampant inequality.

    I know it sounds shocking but give it a thought if you can.

    Here I found unique and controversial take on origins of money that touches upon similar theme of money itself as a propaganda tool of social control.

    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/plutus-and-the-myth-of-money/

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 9:52 am

    Even if everyone worked their butt off or got multiple PhDs, we'd still need workers to clean radiation messes, toilet bowls or change diapers.

    All our system is doing today is making everyone compete ever harder for crappy jobs.

    Do we really need the education we are getting for most of the jobs out there?

    justanotherprogressive , May 6, 2017 at 10:36 am

    "Even if everyone worked their butt off or got multiple PhDs, we'd still need workers to clean radiation messes, toilet bowls or change diapers."

    Is there some law that says that PhD's can't clean radiation messes, toilet bowls or change diapers? Shouldn't everyone be responsible for "survival work"? Why should it just be some class of "workers" that need to do those jobs? Why are some people considered so much better than others that they are exempt from "survival work"? What if everyone put some of their work time every day doing this "survival work" before they did their "careers"?

    Unfortunately, this is just another example of how the neoliberal ideology has infiltrated everyone's thinking, even those who are diametrically opposed to neoliberalism on some level and why it is going to be so hard to get rid of ..

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Typically those who go to university to get PhDs do not dream of changing diapers and wiping butts.

    Two big issues here are expectations management and misallocation of resources.

    Unhappy individuals and misallocation of resources contribute to reduce quality of life and wealth.

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 11:18 am

    If we want PhDs to like wiping butts, we need to dissociate education from the workforce. IOW, education should be for the love of knowledge.

    But why would we want those with special skills changing diapers if they could contribute in areas that improve our quality of life?

    p.s. I have trouble with progressivism when it is used to level from the bottom

    John Wright , May 6, 2017 at 11:17 am

    My late father, who looked for employment during the Great Depression, would say "You needed a college degree to pump gas for Standard Oil".

    He had a cynical view of college degrees, asserting that if degrees were necessary for jobs, the future employers should help with the training expense.

    The "must get an expensive college degree" assertion is losing its effectiveness on the stressed American population, where we approach nominal full employment at poor wages.

    I suspect the education that is most needed in the USA is critical thinking that serves to question the wisdom of our government and the MSM in the propaganda they promote..

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 11:20 am

    I tend to agree. If corporate America shouldered the cost of education, my intuition tells me that workers would not need as many degrees.

    John Wright , May 6, 2017 at 11:44 am

    My dad did have a college degree, but his experience in his father's store helped him get a job as a butcher for Safeway during the Great Depression.

    As I remember the story, many were vying for the Safeway butcher job, but he outlined how his prior experience would "help them sell more meat".

    All one has to do is look at the projections from the labor department for STEM job growth over the next 10 years (about 100K/year) and compare that to the similarly sized H1-B visa count that tech firms want per year to see that a STEM college education is not the safe haven in the job market that the MSM promotes.

    International companies cast a world wide net for educated talent, and are probably unconcerned how much a prospective employee's degree cost to acquire.

    And these corporations also want to lower their US taxes, which indirectly cuts public education funding.

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 11:52 am

    A large percentage of well paying jobs are sales related. We don't need PhD knowledge to perform in those. These require people skills and a network.

    Paul Greenwood , May 6, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    We don't actually need PhD outside physical sciences. It is a qualification ONLY in the Thesis subject matter. We also don't need so many Lawyers and should turn of the production line (maybe that is what inflates GDP in UK and US .lawyers billing rates ?)

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 11:34 am

    It also brings to mind all those who don't want to pay for school taxes because they don't have children.

    I'm quick to remark that on the same principle, in such a system they should not accept government services from anyone younger than them.

    sgt_doom , May 6, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    Excellent point, but that is the purpose of Identity Politics, to erase the concept of "the worker" from our minds and thoughts, practiced by both the r-cons of the bankster party and the faux crats of the bankster party.

    The r-cons' identity politics is that the "media" (still haven't found them in Amerika) are "liberal" (still have found that, either) and the r-cons are besieged by these outfits.

    The faux crats wish to focus on every possible sub-grouping of humans, to the exclusion of wage earners.

    Worked for decades, but I suspect it may possibly and finally be beginning to fall apart . . .

    justanotherprogressive , May 6, 2017 at 10:46 am

    "Do we really need the education we are getting for most of the jobs out there?"

    The future belongs to those capable of handling it – the others will be cast to the wayside. Do you really want to condemn most people to being part of the wayside? Why do you think education is becoming so expensive?

    No, we ALL need more education, not less.

    MoiAussie , May 6, 2017 at 11:04 am

    We do indeed all need more education, but not of the type that most people think. The education young people suffer through for years and then go into debt for more of is designed largely to impoverish, enslave, and brainwash. It's anti-education, creating false expectations, instilling poisonous memes, punishing independence and non-compliance.

    There are exceptions of course. Education for the rich is designed to teach the rules of the game, weed out the unreliable, and establish lifetime networks.

    justanotherprogressive , May 6, 2017 at 11:14 am

    Absolutely true. Our current education system only creates workers – it doesn't create thinkers .

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 11:25 am

    Thank you. That is what I wanted to convey.

    Norb , May 6, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    I am reminded that people with curious minds are always educating themselves – formal setting or not- wealthy or not. The social system should provides an outlet for those talents and effort. The failing of todays ruling ideology is that human talent is undervalued and underutilized. In effect, built on waste and inefficiency in a broader sense. Todays economic system seems most efficient on creating inequality.

    A 4 hour work day based on a livable wage could open many "educational" doors.

    Norb , May 6, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    I am also old enough to remember that vocational training was taken seriously in public schools without social stigma. Labor was not a dirty word. A different form of critical thinking focused on manufacture.

    Another Anon , May 6, 2017 at 12:16 pm

    MoiAussie,

    Are you referring to the "practical" one and two year programs like the Australian TAFE system ? I got a two year computer degree from such a program almost twenty
    years ago and was fairly impressed with the program. Of the twenty
    people in my class, eighteen had at least a masters degree in some technical
    subject though the program was designed for those who did not seek to
    go to university. The ones with the advanced degrees such as myself were unemployed and so retraining.

    MoiAussie , May 6, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Not at all. Practical training like TAFE (or like TAFE used to be) can be valuable, depending on what course you choose. I'm referring to primary, secondary and university education as it is offered to the mainstream today in the western world.

    Primary and secondary education is degraded for reasons far too complex to get into here. Of course there are still tertiary courses and teachers that educate, but universities are now run strictly as commercial enterprises, and such teachers find it harder and harder to prosper.

    Paul Greenwood , May 6, 2017 at 3:02 pm

    Before John Major UK had quality courses such as City & Guilds and Part-Time University Courses – "Sandwich Courses" where working students had Block or Day Release to study and could work through their studies with access to industrial labs and equipment and university facilities. It was very cost-effective. Major turned everyone into Full-Time Students so they emerged after 3 years with no relevant industrial experience and lots of debt

    Norb , May 6, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    The answer to your question is No. The resistance to single payer health care in America belies that fact. Many alternative lifestyles would be possible if one could relieve exorbitant medical care from household expenses. Private businesses would be indirectly forced to offer more humane working conditions, regardless of what that work entailed by the mere fact that labor could easily relocate to a less exploiting employer. Added to that, the removal of stress accompanied by needing to deal with medical uncertainties of life. A sane society would provide care for all its members.

    Guaranteed food, shelter, basic education, healthcare, and some form of work are all that is required from a just society. That should be the criteria for evaluating the system. This is not utopia, and is within reach. There is nothing technical holding this realization back. The elite create conflict to secure their position. They believe in inequality.

    When you look at it, most "jobs" in capitalist society don't satisfy any legitimate human need for survival. Not to mention the needs of the remaining life on the planet. Most are satisfying manufactured wants. A cynical play on human emotion that condemns most to unhappy and stressful lives.

    Change will happen when a critical mass of people can get past the fear and psychological damage that is caused by manufactured needs, excessive higher education for all being one them. In and of itself, a "higher education" is meaningless if you cannot practice the acquired skill. Are lower work hours on the horizon to accommodate all the excess degrees? Not in the least.

    This is not to say that lifelong education should not be an aspirational goal. Only to stress that the social organizing structure must accommodate that goal in a meaningful way. Right now, in America, it is mostly overt exploitation. A creative way to manufacture debt slaves.

    Moneta , May 6, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    Once upon a time, most of the highly educated took a vow of poverty with the assurance they would be cared for in a time of need.

    Today most jump on the degree bandwagon to get on the road to material consumption and end up realizing they were sold an expensive if not worthless bill of goods.

    Paul Greenwood , May 6, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    Before BANKS became the motor of Western Capitalism it was different. Banks were a Service Business now the rest of society SERVES the Banks

    jrs , May 6, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    well said

    MoiAussie , May 6, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    Regarding excessive higher education as a manufactured need, I think there are at least two other factors at play besides credentialism and the (futile?) pursuit of good careers.

    One is the decline in the literacy, numeracy, general knowledge, and other educational achievements of your average high school graduate compared to 30 years ago. It's well recognised in universities that much of what used to be taken as known by freshpersons, today needs to be taught or retaught in the early years of a university/college course.

    The second factor is simply the growing complexity and pace of change of the world we inhabit. I suspect this is a major reason behind the increase in the number of years of fulltime education the average person seems to think they require.

    Paul Greenwood , May 6, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    What is the US Healthcare problem ? It is a Ricardian Issue of who is taking Supernormal Profit and what the correct level of Economic Rent might be.

    Maybe it is Insurance that is the problem. People buy Insurance not Health and Insurance responds only to Litigation

    justanotherprogressive , May 6, 2017 at 11:13 am

    + 100
    I think that people are so driven to value themselves in terms of money, that they won't even allow other ideas like this to enter their consciousness
    Sadly, now is the time when we need to be thinking about other ideas, because the ones we currently accept as valid just aren't working for most of the world's people ..

    Kalen , May 6, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Thank you. You seem to be the only one who got my most important point namely a subversive function of money as a propaganda of liberalism that underlie socioeconomic system of capitalism and commodification (valuation and valorization in terms of money) of environment and social relations.

    What I mean by "propaganda of liberalism" is hijacking of ideas of individual Freedom to mean abandonment of common interests and separation from community, also separation from community in a form of alienation of private property from community commons and hence introduction of money as a representation of the private property, capital or collateral in a debt based monetary system.

    The money is so much embedded into people's psyche that trying to explain artificiality of such an arrangement amounts to a sort of Copernican revolution of explaining reality that completely contradicts everyday common sense experience.

    What's insidious in capitalism is that social relations among masses of people are forced to be negotiated by money in addition to old ways of social relations (also labor relations) being negotiated by social position and political power and/or what we call culture i.e a common set of attitudes and practices that have been empirically/historically proven beneficial for community.

    People do not realize that even 200 years ago many people were living who did not use money even once in their lives since they did not need to, they produced their own food, cloths, tools, they barter other goods and even taxes they paid via field labor.

    Imagine us today paying all our bills directly with our labor, one thing we have abundant and we control, not scarce money controlled solely by greedy elite.

    Unemployment would be something our children would have learned about only from history pages.

    B.J.M. , May 6, 2017 at 10:32 am

    I guess nobody every read False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, by John Gray then a professor at the London School of Economics. It was published in 1998 and is to this day the greatest critique of neoliberal economic dogma ever written. Then again Gray is an intellectual's intellectual so the media has always ignored him in favor of pop intellectual simpletons like Tom Friedman.

    It is as if Gray had a time machine which allowed him to see the future.

    Paul Greenwood , May 6, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    Prior to 1914 Global Capitalism had powered ahead hindered only by US Tariff Walls such as McKinley Tariff and the upsurge in Tariffs in Germany, Russia, France and a ludicrous British commitment to Free Trade which destroyed investment in industry as capital flowed overseas. The result was 1914-18 War and the removal of Russia (the fastest-growing market) from European trade and destruction of Germany and Central Europe

    Bob , May 6, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    Social unrest and a populous backlash against global capitalism are always trotted out as the main effects gross economic inequalities will have. But given the elites control of the media and our economy they have the tools and power to limit unrest and any backlash. The more important effect of economic inequality is that it will destroy capitalism itself.

    Paul Greenwood , May 6, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    Global Elite Alarmed by Growing Inequality

    That is reassuring, I would hate to think "the Global Elite" was out of touch or playing shepherdess in Hameau de la Reine; it is good to know the Controllers have their finger on the pulse and are "caring" for us.

    Cynicism is well-fed in the current era.

    Years ago I read Amy Chua's book "World On Fire" (2002)

    and Sir James Goldsmith: "The Trap"

    You can read it FREE at

    Scott , May 6, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    None of the workers give a shit about how rich the rich are. All they want is a living wage. That the rich, who Piketty points out are rich because they inherited wealth to start with won't pay, is insane on the part of the rich.

    [May 07, 2017] Book Review Game of Mates naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Australia's Real Lifters and Leaners ..."
    May 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ... ... ...

    By Phil Soos, originally published at LF Economics

    This is LF Economics' first review of a book, entitled Game of Mates: How Favours Bleed the Nation by economists Cameron K. Murray and Paul Frijters. The name is a play upon the wonderful TV series Game of Thrones and rightfully so, given both are about how a small number of wealthy and highly-connected individuals, often operating within a cluster of powerful networks, rig rules, policy, laws and ideology for their personal and class benefit.

    Game of Mates is a gold mine of information on the racket of rent extraction for a number of reasons. First, it provides background on how the game slowly evolves (Chapter 1) by contrasting the hard-working Aussie Bruce with the connected insider and rent extractor known as James. By using the power of networking and soft corruption, the wealthy James (the 1%) is able to rip-off Bruce (the public) legally without violating the rule of law.

    Second, the book goes on to detail the largest state-backed legal thefts carried out by the corporate sector for the benefit of rentiers. This term means those who obtain rents (unearned wealth and income over and above what is justified by perfectly-competitive markets). Unfortunately, Australia is a haven for robber barons, siphoning massive and illegitimate mountains of rents from the property market (Chapter 2), transportation (Chapter 3), superannuation (Chapter 5), mining (Chapter 7) and banking (Chapter 9) for the benefit of owners and managers.

    ... ... ... Game of Mates helps to reveal the absurdity of what is falsely called free-market capitalism, as it is thoroughly infected by rent extractors. Recent research has demonstrated that Australia's private sector is dominated by cartels of monopolists, duopolists and oligopolists to an even greater extent than the US, the latter of which is often considered the home of crony capitalism. This is no mean feat.

    Whoever said there is no such thing as a free lunch (perhaps it was Milton Friedman or someone he quoted) is speaking an utter absurdity. The term 'free lunch' doesn't do justice in describing the epic levels of legal grift in our economy. Indeed, it should be termed 'free banquets' as we argued in our article Australia's Real Lifters and Leaners .

    The process of extracting free banquets has gained pace since the neo-liberal reformation of the economy by the Hawke-Keating government, lurching from the centre-left to the centre-right on economy policy during the 1980s. The Howard government continued and magnified these rackets when in power between 1996 and 2007. It should be important to note that these policies can hardly be termed 'neo-liberal' when they are not new and often have little to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal capitalism is a better term.

    ...It should be important to note that these policies can hardly be termed 'neo-liberal' when they are not new and often have little to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal capitalism is a better term.

    ....

    The Game of Mates is about detailing the methods of redistribution from the poor, labour, productive competitive business and the environment into the pockets of those who benefit the most from non-work. There are some data on how much the wealthy steal from everyone else (Chapter 13). Hint: the redistributions are massive in scale and yet do not quantify the full extent of the rent extraction taking place.

    In addition, apart from criticising the upwards redistribution of wealth, they advocate solutions to rectifying these problems (Chapter 14). This can be done by reclaiming the value of the free banquets for the public, disrupting the coordination and networks used by rentiers, and shattering the myths peddled to justify their wholesale theft.

    This book is a very timely addition to the emerging research in Australia and elsewhere which explains the processes and estimates the amount of wealth and income siphoned off by these schemes of legal theft. At 204 pages, it is not overly long and is makes for an easy read. Fortunately, the authors avoid the often opaque writing style and jargon often found in the economics and financial academic literature.

    If one wants to understand how the country is being looted by the minority of the opulent for their own benefit, look no further.

    Read more at gameofmates.com

    JimTan , May 6, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    The interesting thing about exploiting personal connections to extract rents, build cartels, capture regulators, gain legal protections, or generally restrict competition is that all these activities are essentially risk free. Gaining a rent or legal protection from a friend or colleague has zero risk, and guarantees higher profits. This is in contrast to innovation or product improvement which requires high risk, time, effort, capital, and expertise, but can return much higher profits. When opportunities for rent collection become systemic, I think economic rents can crowd out risky innovation because returns for economic rents are guaranteed. In this case the probabilities for (short-term) economic success are higher with economic rents, and as the saying goes 'firms act to maximize profitability'. That is a bad outcome for all of society.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , May 6, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    In 2014 62 individuals owned one half of the world's wealth, now that's down to just 8 people (how they sleep at night is utterly beyond me). When it's down to one guy we can strangle him in the bathtub and redistribute, and usher in a new Golden Age of prosperity and peace.

    [May 05, 2017] My spouse teaches in an inner city school and its pretty much only the immigrant kids who have intact families providing them with support at home

    May 05, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    DH , May 4, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    I have always wondered how successful the big producers, such as Wall Street traders, would be if they were subjected to random stop-and-frisk of them in their cars and coming out of the bars at night like they would be regularly subjected to if they lived in poor neighborhoods. It is likely that a lot of DWI and drug charges would be filed, similar to what we see in the inner city, with attending legal issues impacting their productivity. Assuming they then faced the court system with court-provided counsel instead of highly-paid Harvard Law grads, I wonder how many of them would be back at work the next day?

    My spouse teaches in an inner city school and its pretty much only the immigrant kids who have intact families providing them with support at home – most of the American (black, white, and hispanic) kids in her classes have parents in jail, domestic abuse protective orders, etc. They are frequently raised by their grandparents or other relatives. Playing outside at recess and lunch at school is very important because many of the kids live in neighborhoods where it is unsafe to play outside. Being poor is very effective at teaching kids how to be poor.

    RabidGandhi , May 4, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    Wonder no more: Chappelle spells it out .

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

    Highly recommended!
    Recommended !
    Notable quotes:
    "... [Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies. It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die. ..."
    "... Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working class, the refusal is unimpeachable. ..."
    "... Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the ethnonationalism of the right. ..."
    "... In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions, people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man": ..."
    "... Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. ..."
    "... A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts. ..."
    "... Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | harpers.org
    [Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies. It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die.

    Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working class, the refusal is unimpeachable. But like the know-nothing disavowal of knowledge after 9/11, when explanations of terrorism were construed as exonerations of terrorism, the refusal of empathy since 11/9 is a will to ignorance. Far simpler to imagine Trump voters as possessed by a kind of demonic intelligence, or anti-intelligence, transcending all the rules of the established order. Rather than treat Trump as the outgrowth of normal politics and traditional institutions - it is the Electoral College, after all, not some beating heart of darkness, that sent Trump to the White House - there is a disabling insistence that he and his forces are like no political formation we've seen. By encouraging us to see only novelty in his monstrosity, analyses of this kind may prove as crippling as the neocons' assessment of Saddam's regime. That, too, was held to be like no tyranny we'd seen, a despotism where the ordinary rules of politics didn't apply and knowledge of the subject was therefore useless.

    Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency.

    Where Sanders promised to change the conversation, to make the battlefield a contest between a multicultural neoliberalism and a multiracial social democracy, Clinton sought to keep the battlefield as it has been for the past quarter-century. In this single respect, she can claim a substantial victory. It's no accident that one of the most spectacular confrontations since the election pitted the actors of Hamilton against the tweets of Trump. These fixed, frozen positions - high on rhetoric, low on action - offer an almost perfect tableau of our ongoing gridlock of recrimination.

    Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the ethnonationalism of the right. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Let us not be addicted to "the drug of danger," as Athena says in the Oresteia, to "the dream of the enemy that has to be crushed, like a herb, before [we] can smell freedom."

    The term "meritocracy" became shorthand for a desirable societal ideal soon after it was coined by the British socialist Sir Michael Young. But Young had originally used it to describe a dystopian future. His 1958 satirical novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, imagines the creation and growth of a national system of intelligence testing, which identifies talented young people from every stratum of society in order to install them in special schools, where they are groomed to make the best use possible of their innate advantages.

    In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions, people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man":

    Men, after all, are notable not for the equality, but for the inequality, of their endowment. Once all the geniuses are amongst the elite, and all the morons are amongst the workers, what meaning can equality have? What ideal can be upheld except the principle of equal status for equal intelligence? What is the purpose of abolishing inequalities in nurture except to reveal and make more pronounced the inescapable inequalities of Nature?

    I thought about this book often in the years before the crack-up of November 2016. In early 2015, the Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam published a book that seemed to tell as history the same story that Young had written as prophecy. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis opens with an evocation of the small town of Port Clinton, Ohio, where Putnam grew up in the 1950s - a "passable embodiment of the American Dream, a place that offered decent opportunity for all the kids in town, whatever their background." Port Clinton was, as Putnam is quick to concede, a nearly all-white town in a pre-feminist and pre-civil-rights America, and it was marked by the unequal distribution of power that spurred those movements into being. Yet it was also a place of high employment, strong unions, widespread homeownership, relative class equality, and generally intact two-parent families. Everyone knew one another by their first names and almost everyone was headed toward a better future; nearly three quarters of all the classmates Putnam surveyed fifty years later had surpassed their parents in both educational attainment and wealth.

    When he revisited it in 2013, the town had become a kind of American nightmare. In the 1970s, the industrial base entered a terminal decline, and the town's economy declined with it. Downtown shops closed. Crime, delinquency, and drug use skyrocketed. In 1993, the factory that had offered high-wage blue-collar employment finally shuttered for good. By 2010, the rate of births to unwed mothers had risen to 40 percent. Two years later, the average worker in the county "was paid roughly 16 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than his or her grandfather in the early 1970s."

    Young's novel ends with an editorial note informing readers that the fictional author of the text had been killed in a riot that was part of a violent populist insurrection against the meritocracy, an insurrection that the author had been insisting would pose no lasting threat to the social order. Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. "Without intelligence in their heads," he wrote, "the lower classes are never more menacing than a rabble."

    We are in the midst of a global insurrection against ruling elites. In the wake of the most destructive of the blows recently delivered, a furious debate arose over whether those who supported Donald Trump deserve empathy or scorn. The answer, of course, is that they deserve scorn for resorting to so depraved and false a solution to their predicament - and empathy for the predicament itself. (And not just because advances in technology are likely to make their predicament far more widely shared.) What is owed to them is not the lachrymose pity reserved for victims (though they have suffered greatly) but rather a practical appreciation of how their antagonism to the policies that determined the course of this campaign - mass immigration and free trade - was a fully political antagonism that was disregarded for decades, to our collective detriment.

    A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts.

    In lieu of the social-democratic provision of childcare and other services of domestic support, we have built a privatized, ad hoc system of subsidies based on loose border enforcement - in effect, the nation cutting a deal with itself at the expense of the life chances of its native-born working class. In lieu of an industrial policy that would preserve intact the economic foundation of their lives, we rapidly dismantled our industrial base in pursuit of maximal aggregate economic growth, with no concern for the uneven distribution of the harms and the benefits. Some were enriched hugely by these policies: the college-educated bankers, accountants, consultants, technologists, lawyers, economists, and corporate executives who built a supply chain that reached to the countries where we shipped the jobs. Eventually, of course, many of these workers learned that both political parties regarded them as fungible factors of production, readily discarded in favor of a machine or a migrant willing to bunk eight to a room.

    Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains.

    Even before the ruling elite sent the proletariat off to fight a misbegotten war, even before it wrecked the world economy through heedless lending, even before its politicians rescued those responsible for the crisis while allowing working-class victims of all colors to sink, the working class knew that it had been sacrificed to the interests of those sitting atop the meritocratic ladder. The hostility was never just about differing patterns in taste and consumption. It was also about one class prospering off the suffering of another. We learned this year that political interests that go neglected for decades invariably summon up demagogues who exploit them for their own gain. The demagogues will go on to betray their supporters and do enormous harm to others.

    If we are to arrest the global descent into barbarism, we will have to understand the political antagonism at the heart of the meritocratic project and seek a new kind of politics. If we choose to neglect the valid interests of the working class, Trump will prove in retrospect to have been a pale harbinger of even darker nightmares to come.

    [May 01, 2017] Here is Why We Should not Laugh at Donald Trumps 100-Day Faceplant by Jon Schwarz

    Notable quotes:
    "... incredibly wrong ..."
    Apr 29, 2017 | theintercept.com

    But their elections have one critical thing in common: They both came out of NOWHERE to become president, with characteristics that previously would have throttled their chances before they delivered their first speech in Iowa.

    There's no need to recount everything from Trump's florid life and campaign that sensible people were sure disqualified him. But we've forgotten how the sensible people at first saw Obama in much the same way, and for reasons that went far beyond him being African American. He'd been a senator for just two years when he started running and would have to beat the entire party establishment. His father was Muslim. He wasn't just not named Henry Smith, his middle name was Hussein. He'd even used cocaine, and openly admitted it.

    Yet both Obama and Trump vaulted over everyone and everything into the White House. Tens of millions of Americans were willing to place their lives in the hands of political anomalies whose central pitch was that they would deliver profound change. The rise of Bernie Sanders, who's proven that you can become the most popular politician in the country without owning a comb, demonstrates the same thing.

    What does this mean?

    I'd say it means that something has gone incredibly wrong with this country's political system, that large numbers of us are desperate, and are willing to hand over power to absolutely anyone. That's brings us to the peculiar reality that it's not just Obama and Trump's elections that had something significant in common, it's likely their presidencies.

    Obama said American healthcare was in crisis and that "plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday." Obama was also outraged by pharmaceutical companies gouging Medicare.

    According to Trump , "People all across the country are devastated" by the healthcare system, but if we put him in charge , "Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now." Trump was also infuriated by Big Pharma and just like Obama vowed to crush them.

    Yet Obama delivered a halfway measure that tinkered with the problem, and never went after drug manufacturers. Trump is now poised to give America literally the same thing.

    Obama called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" in 2008. In 2016 Trump said NAFTA had caused "devastation" and was "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed." But Obama didn't renegotiate NAFTA. Trump just announced he's not going to pull out of it, and it seems clear the odds of any real renegotiation are slim.

    Obama attacked Wall Street, and so did Trump. Both then stocked their administrations with bankers.

    And Obama and Trump both ran against the Iraq War, and both of their constituencies understood them to mean they would rethink our entire policy toward the Middle East. Both Obama and Trump then faithfully continued the Afghanistan War, bombed Syria, and helped Saudi Arabia starve Yemen.

    ... ... ...

    "Now that we have vanquished the Dhimmicrats and cuckservatives," Steve Bannon proclaimed, "we shall -" and then tripped on his shoelaces and fell down 97 flights of stairs.

    [May 01, 2017] Process versus outcomes: Inequality indices as tests of fairness

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Another kind of inequality arising through the operation of the market is also required, in a somewhat more subtle sense, to produce equality of treatment. It can be illustrated most simply by a lottery. Consider a group of individuals who initially have equal endowments and who agree voluntarily to enter a lottery with very unequal prizes. The resultant inequality is surely required to permit the individuals in question to make most of their initial equality. Much of the inequality of income produced by payment in accordance with product reflects equalizing differences or the satisfaction of men's taste for uncertainty." ..."
    "... Journal of Economic Theory ..."
    "... Measuring Inequality. ..."
    "... Capitalism and Freedom ..."
    "... Philosophy & Public Affairs ..."
    "... Equality of Opportunity, ..."
    "... Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 2 ..."
    May 01, 2017 | voxeu.org
    The standard procedure for measuring income inequality in a society is to take the observed distribution of income and to calculate an inequality index from it. Such indices have also been interpreted as a measure of welfare loss entailed in departures from equality of outcomes for a society which is egalitarian. A classic treatment is that of the late Tony Atkinson, who asked the question: What fraction of national income would an egalitarian society be willing to give up in order to have equality? On this basis, he developed what we now call the Atkinson Index of Inequality. 1

    However, this procedure faces the well-known criticism that the observed distribution is nothing but the outcome of a process, and that it is the process which matters for normative assessment. 2 In particular, it is the fairness of the underlying process which is held to be the appropriate normative standard, not whether the observed inequality of outcomes is high or low. But if we take the process versus outcomes criticism seriously, does this mean that we stop calculating inequality, since it no longer has normative validity in and of itself? The answer to this question is no. In our recent work, we argue that even within the process frame, overall indices of inequality still maintain their relevance, but now as statistical tests of fairness (Kanbur and Snell 2017).

    An early proponent of the process versus outcome line of argument was Milton Friedman (1962), who brought in the consequences of risk taking for interpreting observed inequality:

    "Another kind of inequality arising through the operation of the market is also required, in a somewhat more subtle sense, to produce equality of treatment. It can be illustrated most simply by a lottery. Consider a group of individuals who initially have equal endowments and who agree voluntarily to enter a lottery with very unequal prizes. The resultant inequality is surely required to permit the individuals in question to make most of their initial equality. Much of the inequality of income produced by payment in accordance with product reflects equalizing differences or the satisfaction of men's taste for uncertainty."

    Friedman's argument highlights simultaneously the issue of process versus outcomes, and the fact that even when the process implies ex ante equality (free lottery choice by identical individuals), the outcome may well show – misleadingly, in his view – inequality among individuals. Even though the process itself is fair, inherent randomness may show spurious inequality in outcomes.

    Suppose we wish to evaluate the process in Friedman's example. This would require an evaluation of whether the lotteries faced by the different individuals were indeed identical. If we could directly observe the lottery choices, that would be the end of the matter. But this is usually not the case. All we can observe are in fact the outcomes. The task is then to try and infer from these outcomes the nature of the process which generated them. It is clear that in order to do this we will have to provide a minimal structure to the class of processes. It is only within a given class of processes that we will be able to infer more specific properties of the process that gave rise to the outcomes we observe. In our work, we show that making these assumptions can provide considerable insight into the relationship between outcomes and process.

    In particular, we motivate the use of two well-known and commonly used indices of inequality – the Theil Index and the Mean Log Deviation (MLD) – as tests of the null hypothesis of fairness versus the alternative of unfairness. 3 We show that the likelihood ratio tests for fairness within two distinct income processes are proportional to these two well used indices respectively – that is to say, the tests are metrics of whether or not each individual faces the same income process. We then suggest that instead of presenting the indices as raw numbers, one could present the p-values that the raw numbers imply – a high Theil/MLD would imply a low p-value, which in turn would indicate that the probability that incomes were generated by a fair process was low.

    We call the first stylised process we consider the 'helicopter money drop'. Think of a helicopter dropping a fixed total amount of dollars onto a population. Each individual has a probability that he or she catches a dollar thrown from the helicopter. Fairness in this process is when all probabilities are equal. The likelihood ratio test for fairness in this frame is proportional to the Theil Index. We call the second stylised process the 'helicopter money stop'. Suppose that within any year, each of our individuals receives the same amount of income each 'hour' and will continue to receive this hourly amount subject to a 'stop' which is dropped by the helicopter. Fairness is now characterised by the probability of 'stopping' being the same each hour for each individual regardless of how many hours they have survived the hazard. For this process, the likelihood ratio test for fairness is proportional to MLD.

    The classical hypothesis testing approach takes fairness as a sharp null and asks whether the data support it. In a Bayesian framework, fairness and unfairness are 'models' and we ask which is more likely given the observed data. We show that if fairness and unfairness are treated as equally likely, then the two indices are also proportional to a measure of how the data modifies initial agnosticism in the direction of favouring fairness or unfairness as being the more likely model generating the observations.

    Returning to Friedman's example, it is obvious that in reality endowments are not equal and individuals face different lotteries. The final outcomes are thus the result of these inequalities across lotteries, as well as the inequality caused by the fact that even when a group of individuals faces the same lottery, and so are equal ex ante, there will be winners and losers ex post within that group. That portion of observed inequality which can be attributed to the initial ex ante differences across lotteries that individuals have access to, might be referred to as 'inequality of opportunity'. This is related to John Roemer's (1998) famous formulation of attributing variation in outcomes to variation in 'circumstances' (factors outside an individual's control) and 'effort' (factors within an individual's control).

    We are then led to ask whether we can test for whether there are these ex ante differences ('unfairness') across groups defined by common circumstances (for example based on ethnicity and gender). We show that for the two processes, we can indeed use the Theil index and MLD to develop statistical tests for fairness across groups. Applying the methods to US data for groupings based on race, gender, health, location of birth state (North or South), and biological parents, we find that fairness is rejected. Similarly, in a Bayesian framework we find that starting with priors of fairness and unfairness being equally likely, the data move us in the direction of unfairness being more likely.

    Thus, the answer to the process based critique of inequality measurement is not to stop calculating inequality indices. Rather, it is to interpret inequality indices differently, as test statistics to shed light on the fairness of the process.

    References

    Atkinson, A (1970), "On the Measurement of Inequality." Journal of Economic Theory 2: 244-263.

    Cowell, F A (2011), Measuring Inequality. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Friedman, M (1962) Capitalism and Freedom . University of Chicago Press.

    Dworkin, R (1981), "What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources." Philosophy & Public Affairs , 10(4), pages 283-345.

    Kanbur, R and A Snell (2017), " Inequality Indices as Tests of Fairness ." CEPR Discussion Paper No. 11930.

    Roemer, J (1998), Equality of Opportunity, Harvard University Press.

    Roemer, J E and A Trannoy (2015), "Equality of Opportunity", in A B Atkinson and F Bourguignon (eds), Handbook of Income Distribution, volume 2 , pp. 217-300, Elsevier.

    Endnotes

    [1] See Atkinson (1970). For an overview and survey of standard methods, see Cowell (2011).

    [2] Early critiques are by Sen (1979) and Dworkin (1981). A recent survey is by Roemer and Trannoy (2015).

    [3] Note that MLD as sometimes also known as "Theil's second index".

    [Apr 28, 2017] The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites Takeover of America by Paul Fitzgerald & Elizabeth Gould

    Notable quotes:
    "... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. ..."
    "... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike. ..."
    "... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
    "... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. ..."
    "... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development." ..."
    "... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' ..."
    "... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
    "... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
    "... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
    "... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
    "... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser. ..."
    "... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud." ..."
    www.truthdig.com

    Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read Part 1 , Part 2 and Part 3 .

    The recent assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.

    Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the " Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred to as " the Global Engagement Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The real purpose of this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.

    This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's " The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.

    In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion, terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and, when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.

    The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike.

    The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it.

    As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA's cooptation of the American left,

    "The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions."

    Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."

    While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system" that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded: "That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."

    Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand."

    Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy. With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.

    The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.

    Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.

    Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left."

    IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte Brian Rossiter Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years as one of Britain's top propagandists and secret agents .

    If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream believer, a dangerous imperialist who acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.

    The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in 1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method. Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more of less absolute."

    But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union.

    In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International (6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen "because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals. In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "

    Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.

    As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."

    Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

    This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see

    1. Part 1: American Imperialism Leads the World Into Dante's Vision of Hell
    2. Part 3: How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for 'Unconventional Warfare'

    Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of " Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story ," " Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire " and " The Voice ." Visit their websites at invisiblehistory.com and grailwerk.com .

    [Apr 28, 2017] Former President Obama Has a New Job Control the Official Narrative of American Exceptionalism - Truthdig

    Apr 28, 2017 | www.truthdig.com
    The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony. When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.

    At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.

    Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.

    Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S. and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon," bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no retort. Russian jets destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But, the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.

    Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change" policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown, blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: " The U.S., Not Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")

    After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about " fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset, he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."

    Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire, and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for his first public speech since leaving the White House.

    "It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts. The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations, and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."

    Obama continued:

    "If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're just looking at cat videos [laughter].

    "So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's become more polarized."

    Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").

    However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers "back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."

    The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism" and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.

    Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.

    "But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information, or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation, and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated," Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase myself."

    What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that "the community will feel more welcome."

    If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All of it lies.

    Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].

    [Apr 27, 2017] Rising income inequality and the death of the American dream

    Apr 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Tehanu , April 27, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    Pleasantly surprised to see this research article on the need to combat rising income inequality and the death of the American dream in the AAAS journal Science:
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6336/398

    neo-realist , April 27, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    Re: Boeing, It is cutting jobs in the Seattle area and not cutting any in right to work w/ little pay and benefits SC

    They're also engaging in stock buybacks to enrich the present stockholders.

    http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/04/26/25102415/seattle-times-providing-pr-for-boeings-greedy-execs

    Huey Long , April 27, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    Does management serve any purpose these days besides screwing workers for the benefit of squillionaire bankers and c-suite executives?

    Oh, right I forgot!

    They use all that MBA knowledge to game the finance system and tax laws for the benefit of squillionaire bankers and c-suite executives too.

    /snark

    grayslady , April 27, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    I don't know why everyone is calling the Raise the Wage Act "Bernie Sanders' Minimum Wage Act," since the bill was introduced by Patty Murray. Further, the Act doesn't have anyone receiving $15 until 2024. If you live in Seattle and work for a large employer (over 500 employees), you will receive $15 per hour minimum either in 2017 or 2018, depending on whether or not the company provides health insurance as a benefit. People are hurting now . They need $15 per hour now . Once again, the Dems are "fighting" but not trying to win.

    JustAnObserver , April 27, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    Seems that Boeing in are trying to get under that 500 employees in Seattle hurdle in the next 2 years.

    Lambert Strether Post author , April 27, 2017 at 4:31 pm

    He introduced the bill:

    With four times as many Democratic co-sponsors as he had just two years ago, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday morning re-introduced a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.

    In 2015, Sanders introduced similar legislation with just five co-sponsors. On Wednesday, he boasted 21, in addition to lead co-sponsor Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). They are:

    grayslady , April 27, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    Actually, Patty Murray introduced the bill on April 30, 2015, which would have raised the minimum wage gradually to $12 by 2020. There were 32 original co-sponsors, all Dems. Bernie introduced a similar bill on July 22, 2015, with Ed Markey as the original co-sponsor, which would have raised the minimum wage to $15 dollars by 2020. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus introduced a companion bill in the House. The most recent bill is a re-introduction of Murray's bill, with Sanders now supporting $15 by 2024.

    I know that many here continue to wish to believe that Sanders hasn't sold out to the Dems, but the evidence becomes clearer that he is no longer the fighter he was when he ran for President.

    John k , April 27, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    I hope you're wrong. But the wind did go out of his sails when he lost NY, before that he was still hoping.
    I continue to see him as fighting for us, but the dems keep kicking him
    the only way to kick back is third party, but a monumental effort for an older fellow. Imagine MSM, Mic, dems, reps, insurance, banks, the 1% and then the challenge to register in even a majority of states
    Easier to take over greens and convert to functional, but no indication he's thinking that.

    [Apr 27, 2017] what is a good defition fo deep state ?

    Apr 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chibboleth , April 27, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    If you want a good definition / description of the Deep State you just have to watch the old Thatcher-era BBC comedy Yes, Minister – the whole show is more or less entirely about friction between elected representatives and the UK Deep State.

    Short, short version: the Deep State is the set of people (government officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power but whose positions are not affected by election results. Nothing particularly secret about it.

    justanotherprogressive , April 27, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    As a former government employee, I'm trying to figure out who "the set of people (government officials, mostly) who wield some amount of power but whose positions are not affected by election results" are. I hear about them all the time, particularly on right wing blogs, but I've never actually seen one

    The power in a government agency is held by political appointees ("politicos" in guvspeak) and those political appointees are the only ones that speak for or direct the agency. And they change every time there is a change in the Presidency. Most agencies have more than one political appointee. My last job was with a small agency (less than two hundred employees) that had five. If a senior staff member is not immediately in line with the politicos' policies, that person is removed (demoted, sidelined, or transferred to another agency). Those governmental employees that stay year after year (the "weebees") just do the work, they have no power, and they definitely cannot make any decisions for the agency.

    Vatch , April 27, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    In some government agencies, the high ranking career employees seem to be rather good at manipulating the political appointees. This does not apply to all agencies; the primary examples are in the military, intelligence, financial, and justice realms. Unsurprisingly, these are the agencies that are the heaviest users of secrecy. There's also a lot of cross pollination between portions of the private sector (completely unelected, of course), and the murky deep state. Some of this involves the "revolving door", but some is just shadowy cooperation, such as we see among the NSA and various giants in telecommunications and Silicon Valley, or among Wall Street, the Treasury Department, and the Federal Reserve. The public does not elect those people.

    justanotherprogressive , April 27, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    I don't think there is much "manipulation" needed. After all the politicos come from the lobby/contractor/donor class, whether they be Democrat or Republican and they are already unwilling to change anything that they perceive as giving them power and control ..

    But I guess it is easier to believe in a "Deep State" than realize that those shiny new politicians we just elected really do not want to change anything

    Vatch , April 27, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    Some of us believe that there is both a deep state and that there are elected politicians who wish to preserve the status quo.

    likbez , April 27, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    When weI say "deep state" we typically understand this term as "intelligence agencies"; we say "intelligence agencies" and mean "deep state".

    From Wikispooks ( https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Deep_state ):

    "The phrase "deep state" derives from the Turkish "derin devlet", which emerged after the 1996 Susurluk incident so dramatically unmasked the Turkish deep state. It has experienced a surge of use in 2017, though often not in keeping with the meaning attributed by the diplomat who coined the phrase.

    As powerful and self-interest groups ( probably even more dominated by psychopaths and sociopaths than other large hierarchies ), deep states seek to frustrate radical and progressive change, so as to preserve their own power, and that of the establishment in general. In contrast to overtly authoritarian rule, deep states must operate more or less secretly, like terrorist groups, so preserving secrecy is a high priority. Control of the commercially-controlled media is essential to the effective preservation of secrecy need for the deep state to work effectively. In the US this is effected through deep state control of the CIA With the apparatus of nation states under their control, their subterfuges can be elaborate and complex. The deep states of the world have a natural common interest in hiding their existence, which predisposes them to mutual assistance. As a Turkish cartoon put it in 1997 "Deep state protects its own."[5] "

    I think the term "deep state" is closely connected with the notion of "national security state" and by extension with the term "military industrial complex". And the core of deep state are always intelligence agencies which tend to escape the control of the governments and in turn attempt to control the government that should control them. There are certain requirement for such agencies that very few agencies outside intelligence agencies meet.

    1. Institualized ability to collect dirt of politicians, or access to such information collected by other agencies.

    2. The veil of secrecy over the actions and funding. Access to some "non-controlled" or "semi-controlled" funding for "special operations" and "actions"

    3. Set of people trained for conducting covert operations, especially false flag operations.

    4. Experience with covert operations abroad that can be transferred to the "home territory" in case of necessity. Peter Dale Scott refers in a recent essay to "A Supranational Deep State", noting how their international integration effectively allows intelligence agencies to evade even the limited control national governments had on them in the first half of the 20th century.

    5. Infiltrated, or at lease "influencable" on the level of "useful contacts" with publishers and top journalists media. Deep state generally controls corporate media as Church commission established long ago.

    Any agency that meets whose three criteria is "by definition" belongs to deep state. That means that outside Pentagon and three letter agencies only State Department (which now performs a part of functions of CIA as for color revolutions preparation) and Energy Department can qualify.

    hunkerdown , April 27, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    Try Charles Hugh Smith 's working definition:

    The Deep State is fundamentally the public-private centralized nodes that collect, archive and curate dominant narratives and their supporting evidence, and disseminate these narratives (and their implicit teleologies) to the public via the media and to the state agencies via formal and informal inter-departmental communication channels.

    In other words, the people who, in the public mind, define and legitimize (or delegitimize) the agenda and the members and objectives of the ideal power structure you describe, which, contrary to almost any anecdotal observation of office politics in general, seems to contain no dotted lines, no stovepipes, perfect subordination, no split allegiances or conflicting interests, and no other indirect pressures from within or without. Sounds more liberal than progressive, tbh.

    eD , April 27, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    The bureaucrats that run America are employees of corporations and contractors.

    Chris , April 27, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Years ago, while working in an Australian state public service department, we considered 'Yes Minister' to be a documentary, and used it amongst ourselves as training material.

    Lambert Strether Post author , April 27, 2017 at 4:26 pm

    My favorite episode is "Jobs for the Boys." My favorite line: "Great courage of course. But whatever possessed you?"

    [Apr 25, 2017] Proportionality the fairness of inequality

    Notable quotes:
    "... My understanding of individuals raised from non-property owning societies still have certain notions of want and possession, for example Native Americans did on wives. On top of that, due to the success of property-owning societies, this suggests that capitalism is overall adaptive and advantageous. ..."
    "... In 2011, De Waal and his co-workers were the first to report that chimpanzees given a free choice between helping only themselves or helping themselves plus a partner, prefer the latter. In fact, De Waal does not believe these tendencies to be restricted to humans and apes, but views empathy and sympathy as universal mammalian characteristics, a view that over the past decade has gained support from studies on rodents and other mammals, such as dogs. ..."
    Apr 25, 2017 | The Unz Review
    80 Comments

    There was a time when boys played games of marbles following strict playground rules: contestants had to stand a prescribed distance away from the little pyramid of marbles, and chuck only marbles of the prescribed size. Rules ruled. Piaget was intrigued by the explanations children gave for moral judgements, and the playground is the arena in which the concept of fairness is honed.

    Piaget followed a model which is rare nowadays. He observed his own children in great detail as they grew up. His was the least representative sample in the history of psychology. Nonetheless he launched the study of the development of morality, and the conception of fairness.

    The majority of experimental studies done in psychological laboratories seem to show that even young children prefer equal shares rather than unequal shares. This would suggest that people have an innate preference for socialism and the re-distribution of wealth.

    In fact, this is true only if people are asked to distribute goods between people who are unknown to them, and who have not behaved in any particular way which would make them consider that some were more worthy and deserving than others.

    The moment you show that one person has been more helpful than another, or has worked harder than another, then judges believe that, as a matter of fairness, the more energetic and helpful person should get a greater share.

    That is fair, after all, because those who were hard-working and helpful have deserved it because of their efforts. So although there are many studies suggesting that people do not like inequality, it turns out that what they most dislike is unfairness.

    Once it can be shown that a distribution is fairly based on effort then respondents will tolerate and indeed require that the distribution of wealth is proportionate to effort and not just based on the mere fact of existing. People prefer unequal societies for the reason that they in fact they do not mind inequality if it is based on rewards for effort.

    Why people prefer unequal societies. Christina Starmans , Mark Sheskin & Paul Bloom Nature Human Behaviour 1 , 0082 (2017)doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0082

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0082

    Unusually for a scientific paper, it is a good read. What really matters in these experiments is context, and once context is provided then it is clear that people accept unequal societies so long as they are based on a fair allocation of rewards, proportional to contribution.

    The authors say:

    There is immense concern about economic inequality, both among the scholarly community and in the general public, and many insist that equality is an important social goal. However, when people are asked about the ideal distribution of wealth in their country, they actually prefer unequal societies. We suggest that these two phenomena can be reconciled by noticing that, despite appearances to the contrary, there is no evidence that people are bothered by economic inequality itself. Rather, they are bothered by something that is often confounded with inequality: economic unfairness. Drawing upon laboratory studies, cross-cultural research, and experiments with babies and young children, we argue that humans naturally favour fair distributions, not equal ones, and that when fairness and equality clash, people prefer fair inequality over unfair equality. Both psychological research and decisions by policymakers would benefit from more clearly distinguishing inequality from unfairness.

    The authors review a long series of experiments which seem to show that children prefer absolute equality in the sharing of rewards. Inequality is certainly a focus of political concern. It attracts those who make bold complaints of the form "The top 1% of people own XX% of the wealth" where the implication is that the owned wealth should be 1% but for foul reasons is much higher than that. This statistic contains several errors, and tends to mislead.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/loathing-wealth

    By the way, it amuses me that people who strongly object to a person's general level of ability being represented "by a single figure" have no qualms about wealth being represented "by a single figure" despite it being based on chattels, residential property (sometimes minus mortgages, sometimes not), stocks and shares, bank accounts, pension rights totals (say, at 20 times annual payments), and other quasi-monetary benefits. Such critics should relax: although wealth estimates have methodological shortcomings, an overall figure gives a reasonable estimate for comparative purposes (as do estimates of general intelligence).

    The Gini coefficient (0 is equitable distribution, 100 is outrageous inequity) is well-known, and usually widely quoted without comment, since the manifest goodness of equality is assumed to be agreed by all. Laboratory studies seem to confirm that people have a deep preference for equality.

    So, when people are asked to distribute resources among a small number of people in a lab study, they insist on an exactly equal distribution. But when people are asked to distribute resources among a large group of people in the actual world, they reject an equal distribution, and prefer a certain extent of inequality. How can the strong preference for equality found in public policy discussion and laboratory studies coincide with the preference for societal inequality found in political and behavioural economic research?

    We argue here that these two sets of findings can be reconciled through a surprising empirical claim: when the data are examined closely, it turns out that there is no evidence that people are actually concerned with economic inequality at all. Rather, they are bothered by something that is often confounded with inequality: economic unfairness.

    We suggest that the perception that there is a preference for equality arises through an undue focus on special circumstances, often studied in the laboratory, where inequality and unfairness coincide. In most situations, however, including those involving real-world distributions of wealth, people's concerns about fairness lead them to favour unequal distributions.

    Anyone looking for evidence that people have a natural aversion to inequality will find numerous laboratory studies that seemingly confirm their view. For example, studies have found "a universal desire for more equal pay", "egalitarian motives in humans", "egalitarianism in young children", and that "equality trumps reciprocity". A Google Scholar search for "inequality aversion" yields over 10,000 papers that bear on this topic.

    Furthermore, people appear to view the equal distribution of resources as a moral good; they express anger toward those who benefit from unequal distributions.

    Indeed, these data might underestimate people's preferences for unequal distributions. One follow-up study contrasted Norton and Ariely's question about the percentage of wealth that should correspond to each quintile of the American population with a question about what the average wealth should be in each quintile. The former question resulted in an ideal ratio of poorest to wealthiest of about 1/4, but for the latter question the ratio jumped to 1/50. When the connection between the two questions was explained to participants, a majority chose the higher inequality ratio as reflecting their actual beliefs for both measures.

    At this stage it should be made clear that all the "equality in the lab" researchers have not been telling lies. They are aware that inequality and unfairness are being confounded, but that message has been downplayed in the telling. From a research strategy perspective, I think it shows how a particular approach (strangers in a lab) fails to produce results which map onto real world observations. When participants come together without any back history, the ideal of equality rules. When the fuller context is given a chance to be considered, then subjects in an experiment have no hesitation in rewarding those people who rise early to go to work over those who rise late to do nothing. Children not only reward those who have done more work, but also those who have been kind and helpful.

    It follows, then, that if one believes that (a) people in the real world exhibit variation in effort, ability, moral deservingness, and so on, and (b) a fair system takes these considerations into account, then a preference for fairness will dictate that one should prefer unequal outcomes in actual societies.

    One proposal is that fairness intuitions are rooted in adaptations for differentially responding to the prosocial and antisocial actions of others. For cooperation and pro-sociality to evolve, there has to be some solution to the problem of free-riders, cheaters, and bad actors. The usual explanation for this is that we have evolved a propensity to make bad behaviour costly and good behaviour beneficial, through punishment and reward

    Our own argument against a focus on inequality is a psychological one. In this paper we have outlined a wealth of empirical evidence suggesting that people don't care about reducing inequality per se . Rather, people have an aversion toward unfairness, and under certain special circumstances this leads them to reject unequal distributions. In other conditions, including those involving real-world distributions of wealth, it leads them to favour unequal distributions. In the current economic environment in the United States and other wealthy nations, concerns about fairness happen to lead to a preference for reducing the current level of inequality. However, in various other societies across the world and across history (for example, when faced with the communist ideals of the former USSR), concerns about fairness lead to anger about too much equality.

    I have quoted from this paper at some length, because it is unusually well-written, clearly describes its techniques and its arguments, follows a logical sequence, and deals with an important topic. My final conclusion is that it leads us to an important general conclusion: the repeated finding of an effect (in this case an apparent preference for equality) should not stop us from digging deeper to check whether the methods are really picking up the causes of decisions, and whether the general effect persists in real-world settings. It turns out that when distributing rewards to unknown people, equal shares is probably a good strategy; but when distributing rewards to people who have shown varying levels of contribution, unequal rewards are often fairer.

    Should we have a coefficient to measure to what extent a society provides appropriate rewards for varying levels of social contribution (effort, ability, pro-social acts)? What to call it? The Reward coefficient? Are social mobility measures an acceptable substitute?

    Discarding Robespierre, should our chant instead be "Liberty, Proportionality, and Selective Association"? I may need to work on these details a little longer.

    dearieme , April 18, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT \n

    "Liberty, Proportionality, and Selective Association"?

    I'd settle for Liberty, Proportionality, and ..: what?

    I wouldn't say 'charity' because it would be misinterpreted. So would 'love'. 'Kindness'?

    How about 'Amity'?

    P.S. I'm no bible-basher but that book is sound on coveting, inadvisability of. Read More

    Santoculto , April 18, 2017 at 3:41 pm GMT \n

    This would suggest that people have an innate preference for socialism and the re-distribution of wealth.

    You start well, =) But not, =( Socialism don't/ never re-distribute[d] ideally the wealth NOR the power-decision, something extremely valuable as wealth in terms of individual well being. So, in the next time, try to analyze firstly this differences between what socialistic propaganda tell you and what real socialism, aka, communism really is.

    Less inequal than capitalism* Likely in some official socialist countries has been but still very inequal and extremely inequal in other values such free speech and proportional fairness in individual power-decision = government deciding everything about your life without any negotiation or dialogue between interested parts. Read More

    Santoculto , April 18, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT \n

    That is fair, after all, because those who were hard-working and helpful have deserved it because of their efforts.

    Yes, this is the psychology of the masses or of the worker, more hard-WORKing you are, better, but some people take note that a lot of non-hard worker are significantly more gratified than majority. So this people perceive a big bug in the logic of [capitalistic] meritocracy.

    "Hard-worker = deserved to earn more"

    but

    A lot of those on the elite are not hard-worker, so

    And "hard-workness" is heritable/inheritable too, so something that you born with more facility to engage reduce considerably the idea that people who are not hard-working, depending for what, are just lazy. The own idea of lazyness seems complicated in this case if it is usually based on the idea of "free will", if you are lazy it's because you want to be like that.

    Sloth is lazy **

    Or s/he is just slow **

    Slow and lazy is the same*

    People who work-hard tend to work- fast* Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    dc.sunsets , April 18, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT \n
    Today's wealth inequality is entirely an artifact of the debt bubble and related Great Asset Mania. It will decrease dramatically when the social mood mania sustaining it these last 35 years rolls over.

    I also note that the first thing deleted from any propaganda piece we read in "the news" is context. We can't have the rubes deciding that it's okay for the surgeon who saved their mom's life after her stroke to drive a nicer car and maybe KEEP what he or she made in income last year. (Ramping taxes on the "working wealthy," i.e., people who have high incomes but are not Gates-Buffet Rich, is Job One for Leftists when they're not celebrating another white guy suicide.) Read More Agree: Daniel Chieh

    Jason Liu , April 18, 2017 at 7:08 pm GMT \n
    It's almost as though egalitarianism is a primal, unthinking position mostly adopted by children who don't know any better. The simplest and most knee-jerk definition of "fairness", defined by feeling.

    The moment you step back and examine the world, inequality starts to make more sense. Read More

    Mao Cheng Ji , April 18, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT \n

    In this paper we have outlined a wealth of empirical evidence suggesting that people don't care about reducing inequality per se.

    Oh dear. Whatever empirical evidence in this study is suggesting, it's irrelevant. Because the people being studied have been conditioned, indoctrinated, corrupted by the society they live in. They are completely useless, for the purpose of determining what human beings – in abstract – may or may not care about.

    Why don't you study people who'd grown up in a hippie commune or in an Amish village, or in an orphanage in a poor country – I knew someone who did, and he, many years later, still had no clear concept of 'property'. And at that point, when you don't accept the concept of 'property' or 'wealth', at that point the whole idea of ' distribution ', the whole premise of your musings becomes completely meaningless Read More

    Daniel Chieh , April 18, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT \n
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    In this paper we have outlined a wealth of empirical evidence suggesting that people don't care about reducing inequality per se.
    Oh dear. Whatever empirical evidence in this study is suggesting, it's irrelevant. Because the people being studied have been conditioned, indoctrinated, corrupted by the society they live in. They are completely useless, for the purpose of determining what human beings - in abstract - may or may not care about.

    Why don't you study people who'd grown up in a hippie commune or in an Amish village, or in an orphanage in a poor country - I knew someone who did, and he, many years later, still had no clear concept of 'property'. And at that point, when you don't accept the concept of 'property' or 'wealth', at that point the whole idea of ' distribution ', the whole premise of your musings becomes completely meaningless... I disagree.

    Since most people have not grown up in the extreme circumstances of a commune, this still applies to the vast majority of people and the model is useful. However, to entertain your proposition, please tell us more about your friend.

    My understanding of individuals raised from non-property owning societies still have certain notions of want and possession, for example Native Americans did on wives. On top of that, due to the success of property-owning societies, this suggests that capitalism is overall adaptive and advantageous.

    Reg Cćsar , April 18, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT \n

    The moment you show that one person has been more helpful than another, or has worked harder than another, then judges believe that, as a matter of fairness, the more energetic and helpful person should get a greater share.

    And folks disagree on who that helper might be. Compare people's reaction to the Koch brothers and to George Soros.

    OutWest , April 18, 2017 at 10:30 pm GMT \n
    Perhaps it's the engineer in me, but I've observed that some driving force is necessary to make a process run. Voltage, temperature/pressure difference, or maybe wealth disparity are examples.

    I had the choice of working in a local mill for good wages but a killing environment, or working my way through college with little money. Intermediate term sacrifice paid long term dividends for me and my kids/grandkids. There's also a good argument to be made that society is also better served by such self-serving efforts.

    If everyone is truly equal, what is there to drive society?

    Santoculto , April 18, 2017 at 10:49 pm GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh I disagree.

    Since most people have not grown up in the extreme circumstances of a commune, this still applies to the vast majority of people and the model is useful. However, to entertain your proposition, please tell us more about your friend.

    My understanding of individuals raised from non-property owning societies still have certain notions of want and possession, for example Native Americans did on wives. On top of that, due to the success of property-owning societies, this suggests that capitalism is overall adaptive and advantageous.

    Capitalism is a short term/consumerism and parasitic-like socio-economic system. Capitalism is advantageous but it depend for whom. It's not adaptative only for short term.

    Svigor , April 19, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT \n

    It's almost as though egalitarianism is a primal, unthinking position mostly adopted by children who don't know any better. The simplest and most knee-jerk definition of "fairness", defined by feeling.

    The moment you step back and examine the world, inequality starts to make more sense.

    More "contextual" or "default" than primal or unthinking. Nobody's earned a bigger or smaller share, because everyone's qualification is simply showing up and being included in deliberation over division of spoils.

    the people being studied have been conditioned, indoctrinated, corrupted by the society they live in. They are completely useless, for the purpose of determining what human beings – in abstract – may or may not care about.

    I usually find your posts to be scheisse, but this bit (I snipped out the preamble advisedly) is pretty good, if hyperbolic. Leftist indoctrination and intimidation infect everything, and must be controlled for to get at the truth. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Svigor , April 19, 2017 at 12:05 am GMT \n

    If everyone is truly equal, what is there to drive society?

    Proportional rewards. Decouple rewards from production, that's what really kills motivation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Trollmonster666 , April 19, 2017 at 12:37 am GMT \n
    @dearieme "Liberty, Proportionality, and Selective Association"?

    I'd settle for Liberty, Proportionality, and .....: what?

    I wouldn't say 'charity' because it would be misinterpreted. So would 'love'. 'Kindness'?

    How about 'Amity'?


    P.S. I'm no bible-basher but that book is sound on coveting, inadvisability of. How about symmetry? Read More

    Daniel Chieh , April 19, 2017 at 3:08 am GMT \n
    @Santoculto Capitalism is a short term/consumerism and parasitic-like socio-economic system. Capitalism is advantageous but it depend for whom. It's not adaptative only for short term. Seems to me that most of human history of every civilization involved property at least since the dawn of agriculture allowed wealth to be stored in the form of grain. Property-less cultures were usually cultures that lacked the ability for an individual to accumulate wealth; however, only in cultures that had property allowed for the rise of more specialized classes of soldiery, tradesmen, and craftsmen. Read More
    Wally , April 19, 2017 at 4:47 am GMT \n
    It's revealing that those who advocate for 'equality' generally have much higher incomes than those they advocate for.

    The Left has slapped together a coalition of Parasites and Perverts and seem to think they can beat the Productive.

    socialism:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2017/03/21/20170328_socialist.png

    The Purpose of Political Correctness,
    To Hide the Dirty Secrets of Socialism

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/thomas-dilorenzo/real-purpose-pc/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Wally , April 19, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT \n
    300 Words @Mao Cheng Ji

    In this paper we have outlined a wealth of empirical evidence suggesting that people don't care about reducing inequality per se.
    Oh dear. Whatever empirical evidence in this study is suggesting, it's irrelevant. Because the people being studied have been conditioned, indoctrinated, corrupted by the society they live in. They are completely useless, for the purpose of determining what human beings - in abstract - may or may not care about.

    Why don't you study people who'd grown up in a hippie commune or in an Amish village, or in an orphanage in a poor country - I knew someone who did, and he, many years later, still had no clear concept of 'property'. And at that point, when you don't accept the concept of 'property' or 'wealth', at that point the whole idea of ' distribution ', the whole premise of your musings becomes completely meaningless... Michael Chrichton on the not-so-noble savages.

    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/

    excerpt:

    And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did.

    On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process.

    And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself.

    The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

    Read More
    Mao Cheng Ji , April 19, 2017 at 6:56 am GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh I disagree.

    Since most people have not grown up in the extreme circumstances of a commune, this still applies to the vast majority of people and the model is useful. However, to entertain your proposition, please tell us more about your friend.

    My understanding of individuals raised from non-property owning societies still have certain notions of want and possession, for example Native Americans did on wives. On top of that, due to the success of property-owning societies, this suggests that capitalism is overall adaptive and advantageous.

    However, to entertain your proposition, please tell us more about your friend.

    He wasn't a friend, just someone I met a few times; friend of a friend. For example: when leaving a party, the guy would just put on a jacket, anyone's jacket. Because a jacket is a jacket, it's a thing that serves the purpose. This sort of thing.

    Native Americans did on wives

    So, maybe they had some form of 'ownership' of women, so what. I'm not saying that there can be only two kinds of social organizations, there are many. For us, for our natural habitat, 'ownership', 'wealth', 'property', 'wage', 'debt', 'market', 'deserves' are the most basic concepts that we never question. They are our deepest underlying assumptions, internalized from the most early age. But I don't think they are embedded in human nature. Read More

    JackOH , April 19, 2017 at 8:00 am GMT \n
    Whew! I'd sooner expect to share a bourbon with Sasquatch and Yeti than to sight those surely mythical critters, Equality and Fairness. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Mao Cheng Ji , April 19, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT \n
    @Wally Michael Chrichton on the not-so-noble savages.

    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/

    excerpt:

    And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did.

    On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process.

    And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself.

    The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

    Michael Chrichton on the not-so-noble savages.

    I don't think I mentioned any 'noble savages'; all I said was that people are conditioned by their social environment. I guess you didn't like the word 'corrupted'? Okay, I take it back, it is, perhaps, unnecessarily judgemental. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Santoculto , April 19, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh Seems to me that most of human history of every civilization involved property at least since the dawn of agriculture allowed wealth to be stored in the form of grain. Property-less cultures were usually cultures that lacked the ability for an individual to accumulate wealth; however, only in cultures that had property allowed for the rise of more specialized classes of soldiery, tradesmen, and craftsmen. So you're saying that capitalism and accumulation of wealth is basically the same thing* Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Santoculto , April 19, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT \n
    @Wally Michael Chrichton on the not-so-noble savages.

    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/
    excerpt:


    And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did.

    On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process.

    And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself.

    The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

    Yes, but it don't legitimate white europeans to act in the same way in "foreign' lands,

    White colonizers just act in the same way not-so-noble savage ones,

    No superiority there. Read More

    Santoculto , April 19, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT \n

    People prefer unequal societies for the reason that they in fact they do not mind inequality if it is based on rewards for effort.

    People don't prefer unequal societies, they tend to "rationalize' that this is a necessary evil. But i doubt most people prefer unequal/inequal societies Read More

    Santoculto , April 19, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT \n

    So, when people are asked to distribute resources among a small number of people in a lab study, they insist on an exactly equal distribution. But when people are asked to distribute resources among a large group of people in the actual world, they reject an equal distribution, and prefer a certain extent of inequality. How can the strong preference for equality found in public policy discussion and laboratory studies coincide with the preference for societal inequality found in political and behavioural economic research?

    Bigger groups, bigger [genetic/instinctive levels of] diversity* Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Daniel Chieh , April 19, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Mao Cheng Ji

    However, to entertain your proposition, please tell us more about your friend.
    He wasn't a friend, just someone I met a few times; friend of a friend. For example: when leaving a party, the guy would just put on a jacket, anyone's jacket. Because a jacket is a jacket, it's a thing that serves the purpose. This sort of thing.

    Native Americans did on wives
    So, maybe they had some form of 'ownership' of women, so what. I'm not saying that there can be only two kinds of social organizations, there are many. For us, for our natural habitat, 'ownership', 'wealth', 'property', 'wage', 'debt', 'market', 'deserves' are the most basic concepts that we never question. They are our deepest underlying assumptions, internalized from the most early age. But I don't think they are embedded in human nature. So he could have committed theft, which is all fine and good until he takes your jacket but hasn't brought one of his own. This is, in fact, a common problem with communes: the "free rider" problem. Such individuals in Alberta cause significant social disharmony, for a real world example, and escalate into violence and robbery.

    Ownership of property and labor may be partially a social concept, but it is an useful social technology that promotes development of society. I think contrary to your thoughts, they are often questioned but its essentially one of the most effective methods for living in the modern world.

    I think that you may not considering the effect of technology and social adaptation as part of that technology; as I mentioned elsewhere, hunter-gatherer groups tend not to have a concept of property and wealth, because they can't accumulate it. But once stationary agriculture is common, accumulation of wealth and methods to defend it become common, which means that concepts of property and inequality exist. Read More

    dearieme , April 19, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT \n
    @Trollmonster666 How about symmetry? "How about symmetry?" I think we're looking for a word that contains some of the sentiment of 'fraternity' without the notion, certainly apparent in retrospect, of being compulsory.
    Mao Cheng Ji , April 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Daniel Chieh So he could have committed theft, which is all fine and good until he takes your jacket but hasn't brought one of his own. This is, in fact, a common problem with communes: the "free rider" problem. Such individuals in Alberta cause significant social disharmony, for a real world example, and escalate into violence and robbery.

    Ownership of property and labor may be partially a social concept, but it is an useful social technology that promotes development of society. I think contrary to your thoughts, they are often questioned but its essentially one of the most effective methods for living in the modern world.

    I think that you may not considering the effect of technology and social adaptation as part of that technology; as I mentioned elsewhere, hunter-gatherer groups tend not to have a concept of property and wealth, because they can't accumulate it. But once stationary agriculture is common, accumulation of wealth and methods to defend it become common, which means that concepts of property and inequality exist.

    but it is an useful social technology that promotes development of society

    I don't know what 'useful' might mean in this context. Inevitable, that's for sure. Rousseau wrote:

    The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!"

    But then he writes:

    But it is quite likely that by then things had already reached the point where they could no longer continue as they were. For this idea of property, depending on many prior ideas which could only have arisen successively, was not formed all at once in the human mind. It was necessary to make great progress, to acquire much industry and enlightenment, and to transmit and augment them from one age to another, before arriving at this final state in the state of nature.

    Social evolution Read More

    OutWest , April 19, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT \n
    If we were truly equal, none of us could be smarter, more industrious and certainly not more successful than the least of us. The kids seem capable of grasping this fact.

    Maybe unqualified "equal" is the wrong concept as a universal parameter of fair play. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    LemmusLemmus , Website April 19, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT \n
    @James Thompson Yes, my mistake. Have corrected it to 0 for equality, 100 for inequality. Um, usually, 1 is maximum inequality (though Wikipedia says, quite logically, that you can say "100%"). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Philip Owen , April 19, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT \n
    I am British but I work a lot in Russia. I have noticed that the Russians are prepared to put more effort into punishing a wrongdoer, in everyday affairs, than the British, who usually just stop contact. Also, Russians have a much more developed, disproportionate to my view, sense of revenge and will put resources into it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    ThreeCranes , April 20, 2017 at 1:36 am GMT \n
    200 Words If I recall correctly from my reading of Frans DeWaal's work with chimpanzees at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, two experiments seem relevant here.

    In one, two chimps in adjoining cages were given treats for pressing a button or pulling a lever. One chimp was given a slice of cucumber, the other a grape, which as a sweet is the more desirable of the two rewards. The chimp who was given the cucumber, seeing that his peer was given a better reward for the same endeavor eventually went on strike. This is suggestive of a feeling of unfairness, injustice and resentment.

    In another trial, every time one chimp was rewarded with a treat for pulling the lever his companion–visible to him–was given a electric shock. After a few trials chimp #1 made the connection and–out of sympathy apparently–stopped pulling the lever, forsaking his treat.

    So, DeWaal concludes that "Morality" or in this case a sense of fairness, didn't begin with an awakened, enlightened consciousness due to any "higher" spirituality. It is part and parcel of and to our nature as primates and builds on fellow-feeling. Hard to argue with this. Read More

    ThreeCranes , April 20, 2017 at 1:43 am GMT \n
    From Wiki

    "In 2011, De Waal and his co-workers were the first to report that chimpanzees given a free choice between helping only themselves or helping themselves plus a partner, prefer the latter. In fact, De Waal does not believe these tendencies to be restricted to humans and apes, but views empathy and sympathy as universal mammalian characteristics, a view that over the past decade has gained support from studies on rodents and other mammals, such as dogs.

    He and his students have also extensively worked on fairness, leading to a video that went viral on inequity aversion among capuchin monkeys. The most recent work in this area was the first demonstration that given a chance to play the Ultimatum game, chimpanzees respond in the same way as children and human adults by preferring the equitable outcome."

    utu , April 20, 2017 at 5:05 am GMT \n
    @ThreeCranes If I recall correctly from my reading of Frans DeWaal's work with chimpanzees at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, two experiments seem relevant here.

    In one, two chimps in adjoining cages were given treats for pressing a button or pulling a lever. One chimp was given a slice of cucumber, the other a grape, which as a sweet is the more desirable of the two rewards. The chimp who was given the cucumber, seeing that his peer was given a better reward for the same endeavor eventually went on strike. This is suggestive of a feeling of unfairness, injustice and resentment.

    In another trial, every time one chimp was rewarded with a treat for pulling the lever his companion--visible to him--was given a electric shock. After a few trials chimp #1 made the connection and--out of sympathy apparently--stopped pulling the lever, forsaking his treat.

    So, DeWaal concludes that "Morality" or in this case a sense of fairness, didn't begin with an awakened, enlightened consciousness due to any "higher" spirituality. It is part and parcel of and to our nature as primates and builds on fellow-feeling. Hard to argue with this.

    in this case a sense of fairness, didn't begin with an awakened, enlightened consciousness due to any "higher" spirituality

    I think it should be pretty obvious because lack of fairness is just like lack of symmetry in some geometric pattern. It is visible right away. It strikes you but in amoral landscape. It takes much more effort (cognitive, conceptual and linguistic) to justify and eventually internalize the lack of fairness. The default is fairness except for the ones who are not fair because they are morally defective. They are just tone deaf. They do not see the beauty of Kant's categorical imperatives.

    Wally , April 20, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT \n
    @Santoculto Yes, but it don't legitimate white europeans to act in the same way in ''foreign' lands, ;)

    White colonizers just act in the same way not-so-noble savage ones, ;)

    No superiority there. According to your Leftist logic, American Indians were xenophobic and are to be condemned for resisting European migrants.

    Wally , April 20, 2017 at 5:22 am GMT \n
    @Santoculto

    People prefer unequal societies for the reason that they in fact they do not mind inequality if it is based on rewards for effort.
    People don't prefer unequal societies, they tend to ''rationalize' that this is a necessary evil. But i doubt most people prefer unequal/inequal societies... There never has been and never will be 'equal' human societies.
    The ones that tried were dismal failures simply because we are not all equal. Read More
    Wally , April 20, 2017 at 5:26 am GMT \n
    @ThreeCranes From Wiki

    "In 2011, De Waal and his co-workers were the first to report that chimpanzees given a free choice between helping only themselves or helping themselves plus a partner, prefer the latter. In fact, De Waal does not believe these tendencies to be restricted to humans and apes, but views empathy and sympathy as universal mammalian characteristics, a view that over the past decade has gained support from studies on rodents and other mammals, such as dogs. He and his students have also extensively worked on fairness, leading to a video that went viral on inequity aversion among capuchin monkeys. The most recent work in this area was the first demonstration that given a chance to play the Ultimatum game, chimpanzees respond in the same way as children and human adults by preferring the equitable outcome." Who decides what is "equitable"? Read More

    Bolt , April 20, 2017 at 6:39 am GMT \n
    Counting accumulations of the measurable as a method of judging fairness or in/equality would seem a materialist trap, very US consumer. I see no mention of Bhutan's happiness index here.

    Those who decide not to participate in work towards normalized social goals have a role too; they give the overachievers a group to compare themselves with and a consequent boost to their psychic well being. What's the point of a Lexus if everyone drives them? Read More

    RobRich , Website April 20, 2017 at 9:50 am GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh I disagree.

    Since most people have not grown up in the extreme circumstances of a commune, this still applies to the vast majority of people and the model is useful. However, to entertain your proposition, please tell us more about your friend.

    My understanding of individuals raised from non-property owning societies still have certain notions of want and possession, for example Native Americans did on wives. On top of that, due to the success of property-owning societies, this suggests that capitalism is overall adaptive and advantageous. Native Americans were devout property owners. The myth of native communism has long been debunked. Read More

    David , April 20, 2017 at 11:39 am GMT \n
    @dearieme "Liberty, Proportionality, and Selective Association"?

    I'd settle for Liberty, Proportionality, and .....: what?

    I wouldn't say 'charity' because it would be misinterpreted. So would 'love'. 'Kindness'?

    How about 'Amity'?


    P.S. I'm no bible-basher but that book is sound on coveting, inadvisability of. I think Jesus lacked the instinct of moral indignation at free-loaders. That, for example, he couldn't see how impossible it would be to organize labor if everyone got paid the same, no matter how long he worked.

    Lots of times, what Jesus recommends is totally effective but If Christian societies had ever seriously extended the forgive-your-neighbor principle regionally, let alone universally, their guts would be in seven times seventy places.

    The Good Samaritan was maybe the only guy walking down the road that day that didn't actually know the jerk who'd been beaten and robbed, likely by somebody he swindled. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    ThreeCranes , April 20, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT \n
    @Wally Who decides what is "equitable"? Natural selection, apparently.
    Santoculto , April 20, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT \n
    @Wally There never has been and never will be 'equal' human societies.
    The ones that tried were dismal failures simply because we are not all equal. Thank you for this clarification, i don't knew. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Agent76 , April 20, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT \n
    January 20, 2017 Rothschild Family Wealth is Five Times that of World's Top 8 Billionaires Combined

    A recent report by Oxfam International highlights the dramatic rise in income equality by noting that the combined wealth of the world's top 8 individual billionaires is more than the lower half of the world's population, some 3.6 billion people. The intention of the report was to bring awareness to the unfairness and injustice inherent in our global economic system.

    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/01/20/rothschild-family-wealth-five-times-worlds-top-8-billionaires-combined/

    May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam – Godfrey Bloom MEP

    • European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013

    • Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    anonymous , April 20, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Can't say that I disagree with the researchers conclusions in principle. But when it comes to the subject of fairness vs. equality in economic issues problems arise. It seems reasonable that a janitor who works ten hours (including two hours overtime) should receive more compensation than a janitor who works eight hours (or less). Similarly, a chemist who works longer hours than another chemist should receive more compensation. But and here's the rub should the rate of compensation to a janitor be the same as that of a chemist and vice versa? I think not, and the reason is obvious.

    True economic equality in theory can only exist if everyone were paid the same amount regardless of occupation (thus a janitor would make the same amount as a chemist). This would entail not so much an economic revolution as a psychological revolution-a prospect that, to put it mildly, is not very likely–except possibly in the collective minds of the Sanderistas. Read More

    hyperbola , April 20, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT \n
    Generation of "responses" is promulgated by keeping the level of discussion very simple minded and generic: equality vs reward-for-effort. Major considerations are (deliberately?) ignored with such a formulation.

    Equality is easy to calculate and apply. Reward-for-effort is not and is easily subject to "corruption" (over-reward due to power-control that can include abuse of those "under-rewarded"). Anyone who advocates "reward-for-effort" therefore needs to START by proposing a system that guarantees that this does not degenerate into corruption.

    Has anyone ever been successful in establishing a social system in which "reward-for-effort" did NOT degenerate into corruption? Perhaps as long ago as Plato usable systems were proposed (maximum allowed difference between poor/rich = 4), but these have never been implemented because of the tendency to corruption inherent in "reward-for-effort"?

    Certainly we have plenty of evidence that present practice of "reward-for-effort" is highly corrupted. Read More

    Daniel Chieh , April 20, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @hyperbola Generation of "responses" is promulgated by keeping the level of discussion very simple minded and generic: equality vs reward-for-effort. Major considerations are (deliberately?) ignored with such a formulation.

    Equality is easy to calculate and apply. Reward-for-effort is not and is easily subject to "corruption" (over-reward due to power-control that can include abuse of those "under-rewarded"). Anyone who advocates "reward-for-effort" therefore needs to START by proposing a system that guarantees that this does not degenerate into corruption.

    Has anyone ever been successful in establishing a social system in which "reward-for-effort" did NOT degenerate into corruption? Perhaps as long ago as Plato usable systems were proposed (maximum allowed difference between poor/rich = 4), but these have never been implemented because of the tendency to corruption inherent in "reward-for-effort"?

    Certainly we have plenty of evidence that present practice of "reward-for-effort" is highly corrupted. No model will perfectly match reality. Equality actually isn't easy to calculate due to the free rider problem, which isn't just something to handwave away – it is one of the most common ways for communes and the like to die.

    Beyond that, traditional systems which reflected labor and risk taking resonated pretty well with people – the notion of someone working harder in the fields was easy to justify, as was the occupation of the soldier or even the brigand.

    This isn't as much the case these days when so much of wealth is tied up by the financial sector of essentially, what was traditionally considered as usury. But the fundamental truth that inequality-based systems do tend to outcompete equality-based systems.

    Corruption, incidentally, is a cost on a system and drags it down. So in a way, its self-healing, as a system that's too corrupt will become incapable of outcompeting a less corrupt and more efficient system. Read More

    Daniel Chieh , April 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT \n
    @anonymous Can't say that I disagree with the researchers conclusions in principle. But when it comes to the subject of fairness vs. equality in economic issues problems arise. It seems reasonable that a janitor who works ten hours (including two hours overtime) should receive more compensation than a janitor who works eight hours (or less). Similarly, a chemist who works longer hours than another chemist should receive more compensation. But...and here's the rub...should the rate of compensation to a janitor be the same as that of a chemist and vice versa? I think not, and the reason is obvious.

    True economic equality in theory can only exist if everyone were paid the same amount regardless of occupation (thus a janitor would make the same amount as a chemist). This would entail not so much an economic revolution as a psychological revolution---a prospect that, to put it mildly, is not very likely--except possibly in the collective minds of the Sanderistas. The most psychologically difficult part of the modern economy is "why should someone be able to make more money by having money" through interest-bearing systems. While its very logical from a capitalistic perspective, its definitely the part which I think our instincts find least understandable.

    The rich history against usury throughout history, including in the East, are a good example that many people found the notion difficult to accept especially when it seemed like it accumulated wealth in a class without connection to historical notions of land, protection, fealty, etc. Read More

    pseudonym , April 20, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT \n
    @Santoculto
    This would suggest that people have an innate preference for socialism and the re-distribution of wealth.
    You start well, =)

    But not, =(

    Socialism don't/ never re-distribute[d] ideally the wealth NOR the power-decision, something extremely valuable as wealth in terms of individual well being.

    So, in the next time, try to analyze firstly this differences between what socialistic propaganda tell you and what real socialism, aka, communism really is.

    Less inequal than capitalism*

    Likely in some official socialist countries has been...

    but still very inequal and extremely inequal in other values such free speech and proportional fairness in individual power-decision = government deciding everything about your life without any negotiation or dialogue between interested parts. You're confusing socialism with Socialism.

    Two people? Each get 1/2

    Eight people? Each get 1/8

    Read the article again, it has nothing to do with Socialism, and everything to do with socialism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    anon , April 20, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT \n
    @dc.sunsets Today's wealth inequality is entirely an artifact of the debt bubble and related Great Asset Mania. It will decrease dramatically when the social mood mania sustaining it these last 35 years rolls over.

    I also note that the first thing deleted from any propaganda piece we read in "the news" is context. We can't have the rubes deciding that it's okay for the surgeon who saved their mom's life after her stroke to drive a nicer car and maybe KEEP what he or she made in income last year. (Ramping taxes on the "working wealthy," i.e., people who have high incomes but are not Gates-Buffet Rich, is Job One for Leftists when they're not celebrating another white guy suicide.)

    Today's wealth inequality is entirely an artifact of the debt bubble and related Great Asset Mania.

    However, the debt bubble is/was the result of the pre-existing power and greed of the financial sector to corrupt the political/media class into rigging the game. That power and greed was restrained until the Soviet Union collapsed.

    It will decrease dramatically when the social mood mania sustaining it these last 35 years rolls over.

    It will decrease dramatically when unrestrained usury leads to economic collapse as it always does for a simple arithmetic reason

    million people with $200/week to spend = $200 million demand

    million people with $200/week
    - repaying $150/week on their previous loans
    - leaving $50/week to spend
    = $150 million to the financial sector and $50 million demand

    non-productive usury is parasitic and once unrestrained will always rapidly destroy an economy Read More Agree: anarchyst Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Perplexed , April 20, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh So he could have committed theft, which is all fine and good until he takes your jacket but hasn't brought one of his own. This is, in fact, a common problem with communes: the "free rider" problem. Such individuals in Alberta cause significant social disharmony, for a real world example, and escalate into violence and robbery.

    Ownership of property and labor may be partially a social concept, but it is an useful social technology that promotes development of society. I think contrary to your thoughts, they are often questioned but its essentially one of the most effective methods for living in the modern world.

    I think that you may not considering the effect of technology and social adaptation as part of that technology; as I mentioned elsewhere, hunter-gatherer groups tend not to have a concept of property and wealth, because they can't accumulate it. But once stationary agriculture is common, accumulation of wealth and methods to defend it become common, which means that concepts of property and inequality exist. In the New York Times Magazine's first "Ethicist" column, Randy Gerber set a problem: You're leaving a restaurant on a rainy day and find that someone took your umbrella from the pail by the door. Is it okay to take someone else's? He said yes (but, if I remember correctly, only one of equal or lesser value to yours; no advice on how to evaluate a pailful of black umbrellas, though; and what if all of them are better than yours? And then, if you refrain from taking a better one, you'll still get wet, which was the justification for taking someone else's in the first place. And if you take a cheaper one, isn't that stealing from the lower classes?). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Perplexed , April 20, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT \n
    @Bolt Counting accumulations of the measurable as a method of judging fairness or in/equality would seem a materialist trap, very US consumer. I see no mention of Bhutan's happiness index here.

    Those who decide not to participate in work towards normalized social goals have a role too; they give the overachievers a group to compare themselves with and a consequent boost to their psychic well being. What's the point of a Lexus if everyone drives them? Are smokers included in Bhutan's happiness index? They can get five years in prison for violating the draconian rules. But they're smokers, so nobody cares, right? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    David , April 20, 2017 at 4:04 pm GMT \n
    A comment about good science and good writing. Darwin wasn't a bad scientist or writer. Same for Faraday and Feynman. E. O. Wilson comes to mine. And Mr James Thompson is pretty good, too. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Mao Cheng Ji , April 20, 2017 at 5:17 pm GMT \n
    @anonymous Can't say that I disagree with the researchers conclusions in principle. But when it comes to the subject of fairness vs. equality in economic issues problems arise. It seems reasonable that a janitor who works ten hours (including two hours overtime) should receive more compensation than a janitor who works eight hours (or less). Similarly, a chemist who works longer hours than another chemist should receive more compensation. But...and here's the rub...should the rate of compensation to a janitor be the same as that of a chemist and vice versa? I think not, and the reason is obvious.

    True economic equality in theory can only exist if everyone were paid the same amount regardless of occupation (thus a janitor would make the same amount as a chemist). This would entail not so much an economic revolution as a psychological revolution---a prospect that, to put it mildly, is not very likely--except possibly in the collective minds of the Sanderistas.

    True economic equality in theory can only exist if everyone were paid the same amount regardless of occupation

    No, true economic equality can only exist when no one is paid anything at all. Everything is freely shared, like, say, books in the library, or food between family members, or the well in the village center. Simple as that. Read More

    Inertiller , April 20, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Thompson sure sounds scientific, until he denigrates the scientific process. "The lab isn't like the real world." Readers should give up right there, because refuting gibberish takes time and a little thought.

    But the main argument (or apology) from writers like Thompson (or Thomas Friedman) is that those that are more equal than you stoically pulled themselves up harder by their own shoes than you did. Your complaints give you away.

    The appeal to these folksy simple beliefs is enourmous but many of the wealthy will maintain that they've been granted wealth because of God's will, or tithing to their church.

    So fans of the meritocratic fraud will work harder. (Working dumber doesn't mean anything to them.) Just think, one day, if you're nice enough, your large corporation can break the law with impunity, you can write a a piece of software for the FIRE sector, start your own web blog on politics that datamines (for free) the thoughts, snark and feelings of the proles, and when you are CEO you'll tell the world you damn well earned all of it. Why wouldn't you? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    dearieme , April 20, 2017 at 5:48 pm GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh The most psychologically difficult part of the modern economy is "why should someone be able to make more money by having money" through interest-bearing systems. While its very logical from a capitalistic perspective, its definitely the part which I think our instincts find least understandable.

    The rich history against usury throughout history, including in the East, are a good example that many people found the notion difficult to accept especially when it seemed like it accumulated wealth in a class without connection to historical notions of land, protection, fealty, etc. "why should someone be able to make more money by having money" through interest-bearing systems

    That's been put a stop to by zero and negative interest rates. For a few years at least. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Zzz , April 20, 2017 at 5:58 pm GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh No model will perfectly match reality. Equality actually isn't easy to calculate due to the free rider problem, which isn't just something to handwave away - it is one of the most common ways for communes and the like to die.

    Beyond that, traditional systems which reflected labor and risk taking resonated pretty well with people - the notion of someone working harder in the fields was easy to justify, as was the occupation of the soldier or even the brigand.

    This isn't as much the case these days when so much of wealth is tied up by the financial sector of essentially, what was traditionally considered as usury. But the fundamental truth that inequality-based systems do tend to outcompete equality-based systems.

    Corruption, incidentally, is a cost on a system and drags it down. So in a way, its self-healing, as a system that's too corrupt will become incapable of outcompeting a less corrupt and more efficient system.

    too corrupt will become incapable of outcompeting a less corrupt and more efficient system.

    What if everything is one same global system? It competing with what then? Read More

    Daniel Chieh , April 20, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
    @Zzz

    too corrupt will become incapable of outcompeting a less corrupt and more efficient system.
    What if everything is one same global system? It competing with what then? Ah, yes, one world government. The solution to all ills, how silly of me not to think of it. In all realism, the only way such a system will rise to dominance is through outcompeting all other memes. It hasn't, so there's no egg for this chicken to rise about.

    When attempted, as in socialistic governments, it gets corrupted because basically, human nature. Its only been shown to work in monestaries where living standard is intentionally low, and in a limited extent where wealth is impossible to accumulate. I'll revisit the vitality of it after Giant Meteor visits us, but I suspect the land-acquiring raiders will still come out ahead. Read More

    Daniel Chieh , April 20, 2017 at 7:13 pm GMT \n
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    True economic equality in theory can only exist if everyone were paid the same amount regardless of occupation
    No, true economic equality can only exist when no one is paid anything at all. Everything is freely shared, like, say, books in the library, or food between family members, or the well in the village center. Simple as that. So who gets the last slice of pizza?

    Even in familial systems, equality didn't exist; it just has less hostile negotiation. And under stress, Bushmen practiced both infanticide as well as abandoning the old.

    You don't need currency to have an adequate stand-in for exchange of power and value. Read More

    Someone in this, and too busy. , April 20, 2017 at 9:40 pm GMT \n
    400 Words It's an interesting chart. Being involved with consumer bankruptcy work, I regularly meet and talk to many people who fit right into the lower end of the chart. My anecdotal opinion is that I find charts like the this one be inaccurate and skewed representations of the underlying condition of the people involved.

    To begin, the chart does not associate dollar figures the various percentages of wealth. I haven't made a career of researching these facts, but I've seen the figure around that the lowest 20% of the population has a negative net worth. This means that if I could talk the lowest 20% of the people referenced in the chart into coming into my office and filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, a legal action the majority of them would surely qualify for, and if, after the bankruptcy, I gave them $10 they would, all of a sudden, be thrown up into the the next highest most wealthy group of Americans. I"ve no time for researching it today, but I suspect it wouldn't take much more to push the forth lowest group into the lower end of the middle.

    Another one of my other problems with these charts is they frequently exclude items most of us consider to be forms of wealth, in their determination of how much wealth people actually have. Pensions, including vested pensions, are frequently excluded. The rights to receive social security and other benefit programs is almost always excluded (maybe they are telling us something). This, of course greatly amplifies the sense that their are a lot of terribly destitute people around. Without seeing the dollar numbers or the components of the wealth included and excluded, these types of charts lend themselves to distortions.

    To accumulate wealth at any level you have to have an interest in accumulating wealth. Accumulating wealth is a lot different than being showered with it. Everyone wants to win the lotto. Far fewer will save $100. Not with the competition from vacations and automobiles and electronic entertainment. It's not just hippies or tribesmen with no concept of competition who will not accumulate. I recommend that anyone who believes there is not a large percentage of the population that has absolutely no interest in taking any action designed toward accumulating wealth, who actively use it with not intention of replacing it, get out a bit more, meet new people just to know them. You don't have to invite them to your home. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Joe Wong , April 20, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT \n
    @Santoculto

    This would suggest that people have an innate preference for socialism and the re-distribution of wealth.
    You start well, =)

    But not, =(

    Socialism don't/ never re-distribute[d] ideally the wealth NOR the power-decision, something extremely valuable as wealth in terms of individual well being.

    So, in the next time, try to analyze firstly this differences between what socialistic propaganda tell you and what real socialism, aka, communism really is.

    Less inequal than capitalism*

    Likely in some official socialist countries has been...

    but still very inequal and extremely inequal in other values such free speech and proportional fairness in individual power-decision = government deciding everything about your life without any negotiation or dialogue between interested parts. This comment reflects a serious case of redneck capitalist paranoia syndrome.

    We all know USA is a Orwellian oligarchy police state and it is a warmonger and war criminal on the international arena despite it claims itself a democracy, so shall we say democracy does not work because USA's failure to implement democracy ideally? On the same token, it is moronic to say Socialism does not work because some jackals hijacked Socialism for their own greed just like the 'god-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritans' hijacked democracy in the USA to fill their own greed. Read More

    Joe Wong , April 20, 2017 at 10:25 pm GMT \n
    @Jason Liu It's almost as though egalitarianism is a primal, unthinking position mostly adopted by children who don't know any better. The simplest and most knee-jerk definition of "fairness", defined by feeling.

    The moment you step back and examine the world, inequality starts to make more sense. Perhaps inequality is inevitable and way of life, but definitely for the humanity sake we cannot grant it moral legitimacy, inequality is the dark side of humanity, it should always be treated as it is. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Joe Wong , April 20, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT \n
    @RobRich Native Americans were devout property owners. The myth of native communism has long been debunked. I would be very sceptical about any proof provided by the White to debunk anybody anything, historically the Whtie demonizes or badmouths others with fake news to make themselve superior. Orientalism and casting South American civilizations as bloodthirty barbarians are some of the ancient examples, phantom WMD and Maidan Square mob putsch are the recent examples. Read More Troll: Daniel Chieh
    Joe Wong , April 20, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT \n
    @OutWest Perhaps it's the engineer in me, but I've observed that some driving force is necessary to make a process run. Voltage, temperature/pressure difference, or maybe wealth disparity are examples.

    I had the choice of working in a local mill for good wages but a killing environment, or working my way through college with little money. Intermediate term sacrifice paid long tem dividends for me and my kids/grandkids. There's also a good argument to be made that society is also better served by such self-serving efforts.

    If everyone is truly equal, what is there to drive society? I remember one epsoide in the Star Trek, Jean-Luc Picard explained humanity to an less developed alien that in the 23rd century, human is no longer valued material procession, human being is motived by wanting to excel, to make himself and the human being better. Are you saying we never can get there? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Joe Wong , April 20, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT \n
    @Wally Michael Chrichton on the not-so-noble savages.

    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/
    excerpt:


    And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did.

    On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process.

    And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself.

    The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

    I am very sceptical about any proof provided by the White to debunk anybody anything, historically the White demonizes or badmouths others with fake news to make themselves superior and righteous. Orientalism and casting South American civilizations as bloodthirsty barbarians are some of the ancient examples, phantom WMD and anti-communism are the recent examples. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Astuteobservor II , April 21, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh So who gets the last slice of pizza?

    Even in familial systems, equality didn't exist; it just has less hostile negotiation. And under stress, Bushmen practiced both infanticide as well as abandoning the old.

    You don't need currency to have an adequate stand-in for exchange of power and value. what he meant is that it wouldn't matter, because there will be more pizza. so why would anyone care about the last slice? of "a" pizza. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Bolt , April 21, 2017 at 4:15 am GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh Ah, yes, one world government. The solution to all ills, how silly of me not to think of it. In all realism, the only way such a system will rise to dominance is through outcompeting all other memes. It hasn't, so there's no egg for this chicken to rise about.

    When attempted, as in socialistic governments, it gets corrupted because basically, human nature. Its only been shown to work in monestaries where living standard is intentionally low, and in a limited extent where wealth is impossible to accumulate. I'll revisit the vitality of it after Giant Meteor visits us, but I suspect the land-acquiring raiders will still come out ahead.

    ..where living standard is intentionally low, and in a limited extent where wealth is impossible to accumulate..

    This ignores the cultural conditioning accepted by the group, both the monk's and the west's.
    Human nature is a social construct – you can't argue on the one hand that we're are above animals because "self awareness", but on the other hand human nature/law of the jungle/social Darwinism determines our interactions.
    The point is, the monks are trained in self awareness and act as a guide to accessing our better natures – fair and equitable distribution should be a hallmark of our humanity not an exception. Read More

    Mao Cheng Ji , April 21, 2017 at 6:55 am GMT \n
    200 Words @Daniel Chieh So who gets the last slice of pizza?

    Even in familial systems, equality didn't exist; it just has less hostile negotiation. And under stress, Bushmen practiced both infanticide as well as abandoning the old.

    You don't need currency to have an adequate stand-in for exchange of power and value.

    So who gets the last slice of pizza?

    Okay, let's see. Where I'm from, the social norm was that no one takes the last piece of bread. What you do, you break it, and take half. Then the next person can take half of that, and so on, until it turns into a crumb.

    In other places I've been, the norm was: you point to the last slice and ask: 'anyone want this?' Everyone would say 'no', and then you can take it.

    But in general, the typical anarchist approach is this: those who are perceived as consistently greedy (or otherwise 'anti-social') first get punished by ostracism, from the mildest form to severe (refusal to communicate with the offender). And then, if their behavior doesn't change, they get expelled from the commune.

    As for

    Bushmen practiced both infanticide as well as abandoning the old.

    what of it? Social norms ('morality') are not absolute, they are dictated by the environment. Where the alternative to infanticide and abandoning the old is extinction, they become social norms. Read More

    EH , April 21, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT \n
    300 Words Additional monetary wealth is valued in relation to existing wealth, so that a 1% increase has the same perceived utility whether one has $1M or $1000. This implies a logarithmic utility function for monetary wealth, an idea which is accepted in economics since it is equivalent to setting an investment goal of maximizing percentage returns, but the inescapable mathematical implication of logarithmic utility of wealth is unpopular among economists. If we assume that people have roughly equal capacity for enjoyment, then the aggregate utility of wealth for a society is maximized by its members having roughly equal wealth. For instance, a person with $100 gets a utility of log(100) = 2 from that, and someone with $1B gets a utility of log(10^9) = 9. If the billionaire's wealth is distributed so that 10M people each have $100, then the aggregate utility of that $1B rises from 9 to 20M, or over two million times as much utility.

    Since wealth is valued logarithmically the effectiveness of rewards falls off exponentially, which means either that it doesn't make sense to give large rewards to individuals (assuming a goal of maximizing aggregate utility), or that rewards should be exponentially larger to maintain their effectiveness (assuming a goal of making rewards effective in individual cases). The latter way of thinking by people pursuing rewards for themselves is why wealth inequality is so great. At each step of the way, people aim to get that next few percent increase in their wealth, which becomes larger and larger in absolute terms. It's perfectly rational from the view of each individual, but it results in nearly all monetary rewards going to the people who get the least marginal utility from that money.

    Those who contribute to society need to be rewarded to encourage more such contributions, but money quickly becomes an uneconomical way of rewarding people once they have more than enough for their needs - other rewards such as status become more effective and affordable for society. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    John Smith , April 21, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT \n
    @Santoculto

    This would suggest that people have an innate preference for socialism and the re-distribution of wealth.
    You start well, =)

    But not, =(

    Socialism don't/ never re-distribute[d] ideally the wealth NOR the power-decision, something extremely valuable as wealth in terms of individual well being.

    So, in the next time, try to analyze firstly this differences between what socialistic propaganda tell you and what real socialism, aka, communism really is.

    Less inequal than capitalism*

    Likely in some official socialist countries has been...

    but still very inequal and extremely inequal in other values such free speech and proportional fairness in individual power-decision = government deciding everything about your life without any negotiation or dialogue between interested parts. I must object.

    Socialism does re-distribute the meager wealth of the working class into the pockets of the non working class and state owned business in exchange for handouts designed to keep you dependent on a system that hates you. Read More

    dearieme , April 21, 2017 at 9:25 am GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh So who gets the last slice of pizza?

    Even in familial systems, equality didn't exist; it just has less hostile negotiation. And under stress, Bushmen practiced both infanticide as well as abandoning the old.

    You don't need currency to have an adequate stand-in for exchange of power and value. "So who gets the last slice of pizza?"

    You spin a penny. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Daniel Chieh , April 21, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT \n
    @Bolt

    ..where living standard is intentionally low, and in a limited extent where wealth is impossible to accumulate..
    This ignores the cultural conditioning accepted by the group, both the monk's and the west's.
    Human nature is a social construct - you can't argue on the one hand that we're are above animals because "self awareness", but on the other hand human nature/law of the jungle/social Darwinism determines our interactions.
    The point is, the monks are trained in self awareness and act as a guide to accessing our better natures - fair and equitable distribution should be a hallmark of our humanity not an exception. We aren't really all that self-aware. Even the existence of free will may be in doubt.

    More importantly, as stated before, it doesn't work to outcompete other models. The monks might indeed have a successful vow of poverty, but then people who don't have a vow of poverty but with bigger axes come and take everything they have.

    The way I read your sentence is to advocate self-destruction, essentially, as a hallmark of human nature. I don't agree. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Daniel Chieh , April 21, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Mao Cheng Ji

    So who gets the last slice of pizza?
    Okay, let's see. Where I'm from, the social norm was that no one takes the last piece of bread. What you do, you break it, and take half. Then the next person can take half of that, and so on, until it turns into a crumb.

    In other places I've been, the norm was: you point to the last slice and ask: 'anyone want this?' Everyone would say 'no', and then you can take it.

    But in general, the typical anarchist approach is this: those who are perceived as consistently greedy (or otherwise 'anti-social') first get punished by ostracism, from the mildest form to severe (refusal to communicate with the offender). And then, if their behavior doesn't change, they get expelled from the commune.


    As for


    Bushmen practiced both infanticide as well as abandoning the old.
    ...what of it? Social norms ('morality') are not absolute, they are dictated by the environment. Where the alternative to infanticide and abandoning the old is extinction, they become social norms.

    But in general, the typical anarchist approach is this: those who are perceived as consistently greedy (or otherwise 'anti-social') first get punished by ostracism, from the mildest form to severe (refusal to communicate with the offender). And then, if their behavior doesn't change, they get expelled from the commune.

    Yup. And yet you seem knowledgeable enough not to need me to tell you the obvious results of it because it happened historically and in reality – punishment systems resulted in people minimizing effort. Even in North Korea, for example, the government found that by even slightly increasing liberalization of farms and allowing some percentage of crops to be sold for individual possession increased productivity by double-digit amounts.

    People work harder when they feel like they will own the results. Negative consequences can only motivate insofar as punishment motivated slaves – they will do the minimal effort. Indeed, outperforming others can get you shamed because of that very mental aspect of proportionality.

    Lack of property ownership just doesn't work, not with our brains the way it is.

    This doesn't even go into aspects of the economy that are nonfungible, cannot be increased and inherently limiting, such as high productivity land, something which humanity once had to highly focus on. Now, Rousseau perhaps understood this, and deplored it – but it doesn't change the fact that was the most efficient way to develop for humanity. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Wizard of Oz , April 21, 2017 at 2:57 pm GMT \n
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    but it is an useful social technology that promotes development of society
    I don't know what 'useful' might mean in this context. Inevitable, that's for sure. Rousseau wrote:

    The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!"
    But then he writes:

    But it is quite likely that by then things had already reached the point where they could no longer continue as they were. For this idea of property, depending on many prior ideas which could only have arisen successively, was not formed all at once in the human mind. It was necessary to make great progress, to acquire much industry and enlightenment, and to transmit and augment them from one age to another, before arriving at this final state in the state of nature.
    Social evolution... Maybe you are oversimplifying tbe position you are arguing against. It is easy when discussing human nature to dismiss the idea that we have genes for respecting or being greedy for property rights but the way to look at it is different.

    Start by considering what is objectively good for enjoyable human society, especially on a small scale, then consider what programming might be conducive to it. Just as it is a priori likely thst there would be some genetic programming to help us not to be fooled by liars the strong and reciprocal feeling for "mine" and "thine" needs programming that prevents taking no thought for the morrow and being fecklessly indifferent to people damaging the tools and other artefacts one has made. Read More Agree: Daniel Chieh

    Santoculto , April 21, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT \n
    @Joe Wong This comment reflects a serious case of redneck capitalist paranoia syndrome.

    We all know USA is a Orwellian oligarchy police state and it is a warmonger and war criminal on the international arena despite it claims itself a democracy, so shall we say democracy does not work because USA's failure to implement democracy ideally? On the same token, it is moronic to say Socialism does not work because some jackals hijacked Socialism for their own greed just like the 'god-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritans' hijacked democracy in the USA to fill their own greed. Your opinion

    but the truth

    "Socialism" is even worse than capitalism, this is its monumental sin.

    Be worse than a tra$h called capitalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Santoculto , April 21, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
    @John Smith I must object.

    Socialism does re-distribute the meager wealth of the working class into the pockets of the non working class and state owned business in exchange for handouts designed to keep you dependent on a system that hates you. Socialism or communism pretend to be democracy OR they are in the end, the consumation of democratic path, the "people" governing itself.

    The "people". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Mao Cheng Ji , April 21, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Wizard of Oz Maybe you are oversimplifying tbe position you are arguing against. It is easy when discussing human nature to dismiss the idea that we have genes for respecting or being greedy for property rights but the way to look at it is different.

    Start by considering what is objectively good for enjoyable human society, especially on a small scale, then consider what programming might be conducive to it. Just as it is a priori likely thst there would be some genetic programming to help us not to be fooled by liars the strong and reciprocal feeling for "mine" and "thine" needs programming that prevents taking no thought for the morrow and being fecklessly indifferent to people damaging the tools and other artefacts one has made.

    punishment systems resulted in people minimizing effort

    I don't quite understand your point here. So, you're against punishment? Or, more specifically, against punishing greed? So then, can I come over, take 'your' stuff, and walk away? I don't think so.

    Okay, I guess what you're saying is that socioeconomic models utilizing, in some reasonable, orderly way, the concept of ownership lead to higher productivity, technological progress, and all that. Well, sure, empirically this has been the story so far. What's not clear to me is:
    1. that productivity and technological progress are all that good and desirable. The Amish don't use electricity and they seem happy. And
    2. that this is the universal rule for all times. Suppose a few decades from now all the reasonable necessities are produced by unmanned machines, in abundant quantities. I don't know, 3-D printers, or something. Do you still need to own stuff? When is enough enough? Read More

    Daniel Chieh , April 21, 2017 at 5:45 pm GMT \n
    @Joe Wong I would be very sceptical about any proof provided by the White to debunk anybody anything, historically the Whtie demonizes or badmouths others with fake news to make themselve superior. Orientalism and casting South American civilizations as bloodthirty barbarians are some of the ancient examples, phantom WMD and Maidan Square mob putsch are the recent examples. Yes, because whites are apparently a monolithic bloc dedicated to the suppression of everyone else, especially Sweden these days. Please.

    良药苦口. China needed the lesson we received. Never forget the price of weakness. That doesn't mean we should denigrate the achivements of anyone else. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    hyperbola , April 21, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT \n
    @Daniel Chieh No model will perfectly match reality. Equality actually isn't easy to calculate due to the free rider problem, which isn't just something to handwave away - it is one of the most common ways for communes and the like to die.

    Beyond that, traditional systems which reflected labor and risk taking resonated pretty well with people - the notion of someone working harder in the fields was easy to justify, as was the occupation of the soldier or even the brigand.

    This isn't as much the case these days when so much of wealth is tied up by the financial sector of essentially, what was traditionally considered as usury. But the fundamental truth that inequality-based systems do tend to outcompete equality-based systems.

    Corruption, incidentally, is a cost on a system and drags it down. So in a way, its self-healing, as a system that's too corrupt will become incapable of outcompeting a less corrupt and more efficient system. Already Adam Smith warned us that the system sold to us as "competitive capitalism" has nothing to do with reality. We have been suffering from "corrupt mercantilism" since at least then. It is no accident that our war for independence was fought against the jewish power family monopolies of the "city of london" and their corrupt (government "licensed") East India Co.
    Exactly how do you imagine your"competitive" system is going to get started (sometime) and then be maintained? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Wizard of Oz , April 22, 2017 at 12:20 am GMT \n
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    punishment systems resulted in people minimizing effort
    I don't quite understand your point here. So, you're against punishment? Or, more specifically, against punishing greed? So then, can I come over, take 'your' stuff, and walk away? I don't think so.

    Okay, I guess what you're saying is that socioeconomic models utilizing, in some reasonable, orderly way, the concept of ownership lead to higher productivity, technological progress, and all that. Well, sure, empirically this has been the story so far. What's not clear to me is:
    1. that productivity and technological progress are all that good and desirable. The Amish don't use electricity and they seem happy. And
    2. that this is the universal rule for all times. Suppose a few decades from now all the reasonable necessities are produced by unmanned machines, in abundant quantities. I don't know, 3-D printers, or something. Do you still need to own stuff? When is enough enough? You confused me a bit because the opening quote was not mine but Daniel Chieh's. Had I time I would gladly follow you and J.M Keynes in dreaming intelligently of the prospects for our grandchildren. Keynes in 1930 seemed to imagine a world in which everyone could share his refined tastes. Now we would with at least equal realism consider making available genetic engineering on a large scale .

    [Apr 17, 2017] If you put the two trends together-increased individual income inequality and increased corporate savings-what were witnessing then is increasing private control over the social surplus

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wealthy individuals and large corporations are able to capture and decide on their own what to do with the surplus, with all the social ramifications associated with their decisions to invest where and when they want-or not to invest, and thus to accumulate cash, repay debt, and repurchase their own equity shares. ..."
    "... Any proposals to decrease tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations will only increase that private control. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 16, 2017 at 07:23 AM
    Why is it anyone would want to save such an economic system?

    April 11, 2017

    from David Ruccio

    "If you put the two trends together-increased individual income inequality and increased corporate savings -- what we're witnessing then is increasing private control over the social surplus.

    Wealthy individuals and large corporations are able to capture and decide on their own what to do with the surplus, with all the social ramifications associated with their decisions to invest where and when they want-or not to invest, and thus to accumulate cash, repay debt, and repurchase their own equity shares.

    Any proposals to decrease tax rates for wealthy individuals and corporations will only increase that private control.

    Why is it anyone would want to save such an economic system?"

    https://rwer.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/why-is-it-anyone-would-want-to-save-such-an-economic-system/#more-28993

    [ Tie that to the private banking system ]

    anne -> RGC... , April 16, 2017 at 07:40 AM
    Possibly I do not understand the matter, but I can find no evidence that corporate "saving" as a share of GDP in the United States is increasing. Actually, the reverse.
    RGC -> anne... , April 16, 2017 at 07:50 AM
    http://voxeu.org/article/global-corporate-saving-glut
    anne -> RGC... , April 16, 2017 at 08:00 AM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=dnZ6

    January 30, 2017

    Net Corporate Saving * as a share of Gross Domestic Product, 1948-2016

    * Undistributed profits

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

    January 30, 2017

    Net Corporate Saving * as a share of Gross Domestic Product, 1980-2016

    * Undistributed profits

    anne -> anne... , April 16, 2017 at 06:12 PM
    Again, I was and am right.

    I can find no evidence that corporate "saving" as a share of GDP in the United States is increasing. Actually, the reverse:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=dnZ6

    anne -> RGC... , April 16, 2017 at 08:03 AM
    http://voxeu.org/article/global-corporate-saving-glut

    April 5, 2017

    The global corporate saving glut: Long-term evidence

    By Peter Chen, Loukas Karabarbounis, and Brent Neiman

    Corporate saving has increased relative to GDP and corporate investment across the world over the past three decades, reflecting how the global decline in the labour has led to increased corporate profits. This column characterises these trends using national income accounts and firm-level data, and relates them to firm characteristics and the accumulation of financial assets. In response to declines in the components of the cost of capital, a model with capital market imperfections generates an increase in corporate saving similar to that found in the data.

    [ I am grateful for the reference, but I had already read the paper carefully and found no reason to agree with the assertion that there is long term evidence of a corporate saving glut. ]

    RGC -> anne... , April 16, 2017 at 02:55 PM

    2.2 National Accounts Structure and Identities

    National accounts data include sector accounts that divide the economy into the corporate sector, the government sector, and the household and non-profit sector.

    For most economies, the corporate sector can be further disaggregated into financial and non-financial corporations and the household sector can be distinguished from the non-profit sector.

    National accounts data also include industry accounts that divide activity according to the International Standard Industrial
    Classification, Rev. 4 (SIC).

    A set of accounting identities that hold in the aggregate as well as at the sector or industry
    level serve as the backbone for the national accounts.

    In these accounts, the value of final
    production (i.e. production net of intermediate goods) is called gross value added (GVA). When
    aggregated to the economy level, GVA equals GDP less net taxes on products. GVA is detailed
    in the generation of income account and equals the sum of income paid to capital, labor, and
    taxes:


    GVA = Gross Operating Surplus (GOS) + Compensation to Labor
    + Net Taxes on Production.


    GOS captures the income available to corporations and other producing entities after paying for labor services and after subtracting taxes (and adding subsidies) associated with production.


    The distribution of income account splits GOS into gross saving, dividends, and other payments to capital such as taxes on profits, interest payments, reinvested foreign earnings, and other transfers:


    GOS = Gross Saving (GS) + Net Dividends | {z } Accounting Profits
    + Taxes on Profits + Interest
    − Reinvested Earnings on Foreign Direct Investment + Other Transfers.


    Net dividends equal dividends paid less dividends received from subsidiaries or partially-owned entities. Other transfers include social contributions and rental payments on land.

    In our analyses, we define (accounting) profits as the sum of gross saving and net dividends.


    The capital account connects the flow of saving to the flow of investment as follows:

    GS = Net Lending + Gross Fixed Capital Formation + Changes in Inventories + Changes in Other Non-Financial Produced Assets.

    The net lending position is defined as the excess of gross saving over investment spending.

    https://minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp736.pdf

    RGC -> RGC... , April 16, 2017 at 03:22 PM
    GOS = Gross Saving (GS) + Net Dividends + Taxes on Profits + Interest − Reinvested Earnings on Foreign Direct Investment + Other Transfers.
    reason -> RGC... , April 16, 2017 at 07:51 AM
    "Wealthy individuals and large corporations are able to capture and decide on their own what to do with the surplus, with all the social ramifications associated with their decisions to invest where and when they want-or not to invest, and thus to accumulate cash, repay debt, and repurchase their own equity shares."

    Or in the case of say Bill Gates in deciding which causes get assistance and which not rather than people voting on it (not that I think Bill Gates is necessarily doing harm - but why should he get to decide?).

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> reason... , April 16, 2017 at 09:33 AM
    $democracy
    RGC -> reason... , April 16, 2017 at 03:25 PM
    Right. And private banks get to do it routinely.

    [Apr 09, 2017] the Nordic model of inequality reduction is pretty simple: use broad-based transfers to increase everyones gross income and balance that fiscally by levying taxes that increase with income

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. , April 08, 2017 at 11:14 AM
    This might be the way to go:

    http://www.demos.org/blog/3/26/15/why-fiscal-progressivity-discussions-are-so-muddled

    Why Fiscal Progressivity Discussions Are So Muddled

    Posted by Matt Bruenig on March 26, 2015

    Yesterday I wrote about the mistaken way that I think some commentators discuss cross-country tax progressivity. Based on OECD tables and the work of Monica Prasad, the conventional wisdom is that low-inequality countries use extremely progressive transfers rather than progressive taxes to get that way. But when you look at transfer levels in these countries broken down by income decile, you often see something like this:

    [chart]

    That sure doesn't seem like progressive transfer spending, does it? So how can the conventional wisdom be right if the graph looks like that? Why does this graph seem on first glance to so challenge the conventional wisdom? The answer lies deep in the methodological weeds. Explaining it helps to reveal why I find these discussions to be so muddled and why I think the conveying of the conventional wisdom tends to be broadly unhelpful to normal (and often even very sophisticated) audiences.

    ...

    Treatments of this topic that fail to convey this (and I think many of them do, often because even the writer doesn't understand what's going on) darken more than they illuminate. Really, the "progressivity" discussions in general do that, making the topic far more complicated and muddled than it needs to be.

    Which is especially sad because the Nordic model of inequality reduction is pretty simple: use broad-based transfers to increase everyone's gross income and balance that fiscally by levying taxes that increase with income.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , April 08, 2017 at 12:18 PM
    Some of what he writes makes a little sense but this is really dumb:

    "The bigger problem with the regressivity objection, in my view, is that dividing taxes paid by income seems to obscure the more important point. What really matters in all of this is how many dollars you are scraping from poor, middle class, and rich people."

    Not considering the level of income - just how much a person pays in taxes? Heck - that makes the head tax OK. Dumbest metric for the fairness of the tax system ever.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , April 08, 2017 at 01:22 PM
    Learn how to read...

    "Which is especially sad because the Nordic model of inequality reduction is pretty simple: use broad-based transfers to increase everyone's gross income and balance that fiscally by levying taxes that increase with income."

    [Apr 04, 2017] Yes progress was made from 1960 to 1975. But what after that? To dismiss the rise in inequality by saying one can reconfigure the CPI index is Heritage level nonsense.

    Apr 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    pgl , April 03, 2017 at 12:21 PM
    Mankiw alert. He is hyping this:

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w23292

    "Despite the large increase in U.S. income inequality, consumption for families at the 25th and 50th percentiles of income has grown steadily over the time period 1960-2015. The number of cars per household with below median income has doubled since 1980 and the number of bedrooms per household has grown 10 percent despite decreases in household size. The finding of zero growth in American real wages since the 1970s is driven in part by the choice of the CPI-U as the price deflator; small biases in any price deflator compound over long periods of time. Using a different deflator such as the Personal Consumption Expenditures index (PCE) yields modest growth in real wages and in median household incomes throughout the time period. Accounting for the Hamilton (1998) and Costa (2001) estimates of CPI bias yields estimated wage growth of 1 percent per year during 1975-2015. Meaningful growth in consumption for below median income families has occurred even in a prolonged period of increasing income inequality, increasing consumption inequality and a decreasing share of national income accruing to labor."

    Yes progress was made from 1960 to 1975. But what after that? To dismiss the rise in inequality by saying one can reconfigure the CPI index is Heritage level nonsense.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Foundation - Fall Of The American Galactic Empire Zero Hedge

    Mar 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Mar 27, 2017 10:40 PM Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    "The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity-a hundred other factors. It has been going on, as I have said, for centuries, and it is too majestic and massive a movement to stop." – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    "Any fool can tell a crisis when it arrives. The real service to the state is to detect it in embryo." – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    I read Isaac Asimov's renowned award winning science fiction trilogy four decades ago as a teenager. I read them because I liked science fiction novels, not because I was trying to understand the correlation to the fall of the Roman Empire. The books that came to be called the Foundation Trilogy (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation) were not written as novels; they're the collected Foundation stories Asimov wrote between 1941 and 1950. He wrote these stories during the final stages of our last Fourth Turning Crisis and the beginning stages of the next High. This was the same time frame in which Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Orwell wrote 1984 . This was not a coincidence.

    The tone of foreboding, danger, dread, and impending doom, along with unending warfare, propels all of these novels because they were all written during the bloodiest and most perilous portion of the last Fourth Turning . As the linear thinking establishment continues to be blindsided by the continued deterioration of the economic, political, social, and cultural conditions in the world, we have entered the most treacherous phase of our present Fourth Turning .

    That ominous mood engulfing the world is not a new dynamic, but a cyclical event arriving every 80 or so years. Eight decades ago the world was on the verge of a world war which would kill 65 million people. Eight decades prior to 1937 the country was on the verge of a Civil War which would kill almost 5% of the male population. Eight decades prior to 1857 the American Revolution had just begun and would last six more bloody years. None of this is a coincidence. The generational configuration repeats itself every eighty years, driving the mood change which leads to revolutionary change and the destruction of the existing social order.

    Isaac Asimov certainly didn't foresee his Foundation stories representing the decline of an American Empire that didn't yet exist. The work that inspired Asimov was Edward Gibbon's multi-volume series, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , published between 1776 and 1789. Gibbon saw Rome's fall not as a consequence of specific, dramatic events, but as the result of the gradual decline of civic virtue, monetary debasement and rise of Christianity, which made the Romans less vested in worldly affairs.

    Gibbon's tome reflects the same generational theory espoused by Strauss and Howe in The Fourth Turning . Gibbon's conclusion was human nature never changes, and mankind's penchant for division, amplified by environmental and cultural differences, is what governs the cyclical nature of history. Gibbon constructs a narrative spanning centuries as events unfold and emperors' successes and failures occur within the context of a relentless decline of empire. The specific events and behaviors of individual emperors were inconsequential within the larger framework and pattern of historical decline. History plods relentlessly onward, driven by the law of large numbers.

    Asimov described his inspiration for the novels:

    "I wanted to consider essentially the science of psychohistory, something I made up myself. It was, in a sense, the struggle between free will and determinism. On the other hand, I wanted to do a story on the analogy of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but on the much larger scale of the galaxy. To do that, I took over the aura of the Roman Empire and wrote it very large. The social system, then, is very much like the Roman imperial system, but that was just my skeleton.

    It seemed to me that if we did have a galactic empire, there would be so many human beings-quintillions of them-that perhaps you might be able to predict very accurately how societies would behave, even though you couldn't predict how individuals composing those societies would behave. So, against the background of the Roman Empire written large, I invented the science of psychohistory. Throughout the entire trilogy, then, there are the opposing forces of individual desire and that dead hand of social inevitability."

    Is History Pre-Determined?

    "Don't you see? It's Galaxy-wide. It's a worship of the past. It's a deterioration – a stagnation!" – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    "It has been my philosophy of life that difficulties vanish when faced boldly." – Isaac Asimov, Foundation

    The Foundation trilogy opens on Trantor, the capital of the 12,000-year-old Galactic Empire. Though the empire appears stable and powerful, it is slowly decaying in ways that parallel the decline of the Western Roman Empire. Hari Seldon, a mathematician and psychologist, has developed psychohistory, a new field of science that equates all possibilities in large societies to mathematics, allowing for the prediction of future events.

    Psychohistory is a blend of crowd psychology and high-level math. An able psychohistorian can predict the long-term aggregate behavior of billions of people many years in the future. However, it only works with large groups. Psychohistory is almost useless for predicting the behavior of an individual. Also, it's no good if the group being analyzed is aware it's being analyzed - because if it's aware, the group changes its behavior.

    Using psychohistory, Seldon has discovered the declining nature of the Empire, angering the aristocratic rulers of the Empire. The rulers consider Seldon's views and statements treasonous, and he is arrested. Seldon is tried by the state and defends his beliefs, explaining his theory the Empire will collapse in 300 years and enter a 30,000-year dark age.

    He informs the rulers an alternative to this future is attainable, and explains to them generating an anthology of all human knowledge, the Encyclopedia Galactica, would not avert the inevitable fall of the Empire but would reduce the Dark Age to "only" 1,000 years.

    The fearful state apparatchiks offer him exile to a remote world, Terminus, with other academic intellectuals who could help him create the Encyclopedia. He accepts their offer, and sets in motion his plan to set up two Foundations, one at either end of the galaxy, to preserve the accumulated knowledge of humanity and thereby shorten the Dark Age, once the Empire collapses. Seldon created the Foundation, knowing it would eventually be seen as a threat to rulers of the Empire, provoking an eventual attack. That is why he created a Second Foundation, unknown to the ruling class.

    Asimov's psychohistory concept, based on the predictability of human actions in large numbers, has similarities to Strauss & Howe's generational theory. His theory didn't pretend to predict the actions of individuals, but formulated definite laws developed by mathematical analysis to predict the mass action of human groups. His novel explores the centuries old debate of whether human history proceeds in a predictable fashion, with individuals incapable of changing its course, or whether individuals can alter its progression.

    The cyclical nature of history, driven by generational cohorts numbering tens of millions, has been documented over centuries by Strauss & Howe in their 1997 opus The Fourth Turning . Human beings in large numbers react in a herd-like predictable manner. I know that is disappointing to all the linear thinking individualists who erroneously believe one person can change the world and course of history.

    The cyclical crisis's that occur every eighty years matches up with how every Foundation story centers on what is called a Seldon crisis, the conjunction of seemingly insoluble external and internal difficulties. The crises were all predicted by Seldon, who appears near the end of each story as a hologram to confirm the Foundation has traversed the latest one correctly.

    The "Seldon Crises" take on two forms. Either events unfold in such a way there is only one clear path to take, or the forces of history conspire to determine the outcome. But, the common feature is free will doesn't matter. The heroes and adversaries believe their choices will make a difference when, in fact, the future is already written. This is a controversial viewpoint which angers many people because they feel it robs them of their individuality.

    Most people don't want to be lumped together in an amalgamation of other humans because they believe admitting so would strip them of their sense of free will. Their delicate sensibilities are bruised by the unequivocal fact their individual actions are virtually meaningless to the direction of history. But, the madness of crowds can dramatically impact antiquity.

    "In reading The History of Nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities, their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first." – Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

    Many people argue the dynamic advancements in technology and science have changed the world in such a way to alter human nature in a positive way, thereby resulting in humans acting in a more rational manner. This alteration would result in a level of human progress not experienced previously. The falsity of this technological theory is borne out by the continuation of war, government corruption, greed, belief in economic fallacies, civic decay, cultural degradation, and global disorder sweeping across the world. Humanity is incapable of change. The same weaknesses and self- destructive traits which have plagued them throughout history are as prevalent today as they ever were.

    Asimov's solution to the failure of humanity to change was to create an academic oriented benevolent ruling class who could save the human race from destroying itself. He seems to have been well before his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and Deep State functionaries. It appears he agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses could not be trusted to make good decisions, so they needed more intellectually advanced men to guide their actions.

    "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.

    Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." – Edward Bernays – Propaganda

    In Part Two of this article I will compare and contrast Donald Trump's rise to power to the rise of The Mule in Asimov's masterpiece. Unusually gifted individuals come along once in a lifetime to disrupt the plans of the existing social order.

    Beam Me Up Scotty -> BaBaBouy , Mar 27, 2017 10:56 PM

    " He seems to have been well before his time with regards to creating Shadow Governments and Deep State functionaries. It appears he agreed with his contemporary Edward Bernays. The masses could not be trusted to make good decisions, so they needed more intellectually advanced men to guide their actions."

    The masses aren't the ones begging to start all of these wars. They are the ones TRYING to make a few good decisions. The Shadow Government and Deep State however, are hell bent on getting us all killed. Who exactly is the problem here??

    LetThemEatRand , Mar 27, 2017 10:50 PM

    Asimov was a good writer and created some great fiction. That's as far as it goes.

    Huxle LetThemEatRand •Mar 27, 2017 10:50 PM y is the one who predicted the current state of affairs. Orwell gets honorable mention. You could also throw in some biblical passages for the mark of the beast, though the best part was clearly written about Nero.

    biker Mar 27, 2017 11:06 PM
    Of course its better to watch them eat themselves
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/rewriting-the-rules...

    [Mar 25, 2017] Its Not Just Unfair: Inequality Is a Threat to Our Governance

    Notable quotes:
    "... As recognized since ancient times, the coexistence of very rich and very poor leads to two possibilities, neither a happy one. The rich can rule alone, disenfranchising or even enslaving the poor, or the poor can rise up and confiscate the wealth of the rich. The rich tend to see themselves as better than the poor, a proclivity that is enhanced and even socially sanctioned in modern meritocracies. The poor, with little prospect of economic improvement and no access to political power, "might turn to a demagogue who would overthrow the government - only to become a tyrant. Oligarchy or tyranny, economic inequality meant the end of the republic." ..."
    "... Some constitutions were written to contain inequalities. In Rome, the patricians ruled, but could be overruled by plebeian tribunes whose role was to protect the poor. There are constitutions with lords and commoners in separate chambers, each with well-defined powers. Sitaraman calls these "class warfare constitutions," and argues that the founding fathers of the United States found another way, a republic of equals. The middle classes, who according to David Hume were obsessed neither with pleasure-seeking, as were the rich, nor with meeting basic necessities, as were the poor, and were thus amenable to reason, could be a firm basis for a republic run in the public interest. There is some sketchy evidence that income and wealth inequality was indeed low in the 18th century, but the crucial point is that early America was an agrarian society of cultivators with an open frontier. No one needed to be poor when land was available in the West. ..."
    "... Jefferson was proud of his achievement in abolishing the entail and primogeniture in Virginia, writing the laws that "laid the ax to the root of Pseudoaristocracy." He called for progressive taxation and, like the other founders, feared that the inheritance of wealth would lead to the establishment of an aristocracy. ..."
    "... Madison tried to calculate how long the frontier would last, and understood the threat to the Constitution that industrialization would bring; many of the founders thought of wage labor as little better than slavery and hoped that America could remain an agrarian society. ..."
    "... In perhaps the most original part of his book, Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, highlights the achievements of the Progressive movement, one of whose aims was taming inequality, and which successfully modified the Constitution. There were four constitutional amendments in seven years - the direct election of senators, the franchise for women, the prohibition of alcohol and the income tax. To which I would add another reform, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which provided a mechanism for handling financial crises without the need for the government to be bailed out by rich bankers, as well as the reduction in the tariff, which favored ordinary people by bringing down the cost of manufactures. Politics can respond to inequality, and the Constitution is not set in stone. ..."
    "... It's interesting that the language of inequality is the language of technocrats, however worthy. It's a way to talk about the politics without referring to Marxist or populist/labor traditions which often involve social movements. ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/books/review/crisis-of-the-middle-class-constitution-ganesh-sitaraman-.html

    March 20, 2017

    It's Not Just Unfair: Inequality Is a Threat to Our Governance
    By ANGUS DEATON

    THE CRISIS OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS CONSTITUTION
    Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic
    By Ganesh Sitaraman

    President Obama labeled income inequality "the defining challenge of our time." But why exactly? And why "our time" especially? In part because we now know just how much goes to the very top of the income distribution, and beyond that, we know that recent economic growth, which has been anemic in any case, has accrued mostly to those who were already well-heeled, leaving stagnation or worse for many Americans. But why is this a problem?

    Why am I hurt if Mark Zuckerberg develops Facebook, and gets rich on the proceeds? Some care about the unfairness of income inequality itself, some care about the loss of upward mobility and declining opportunities for our kids and some care about how people get rich - hard work and innovation are O.K., but theft, legal or otherwise, is not. Yet there is one threat of inequality that is widely feared, and that has been debated for thousands of years, which is that inequality can undermine governance. In his fine book, both history and call to arms, Ganesh Sitaraman argues that the contemporary explosion of inequality will destroy the American Constitution, which is and was premised on the existence of a large and thriving middle class. He has done us all a great service, taking an issue of overwhelming public importance, delving into its history, helping understand how our forebears handled it and building a platform to think about it today.

    As recognized since ancient times, the coexistence of very rich and very poor leads to two possibilities, neither a happy one. The rich can rule alone, disenfranchising or even enslaving the poor, or the poor can rise up and confiscate the wealth of the rich. The rich tend to see themselves as better than the poor, a proclivity that is enhanced and even socially sanctioned in modern meritocracies. The poor, with little prospect of economic improvement and no access to political power, "might turn to a demagogue who would overthrow the government - only to become a tyrant. Oligarchy or tyranny, economic inequality meant the end of the republic."

    Some constitutions were written to contain inequalities. In Rome, the patricians ruled, but could be overruled by plebeian tribunes whose role was to protect the poor. There are constitutions with lords and commoners in separate chambers, each with well-defined powers. Sitaraman calls these "class warfare constitutions," and argues that the founding fathers of the United States found another way, a republic of equals. The middle classes, who according to David Hume were obsessed neither with pleasure-seeking, as were the rich, nor with meeting basic necessities, as were the poor, and were thus amenable to reason, could be a firm basis for a republic run in the public interest. There is some sketchy evidence that income and wealth inequality was indeed low in the 18th century, but the crucial point is that early America was an agrarian society of cultivators with an open frontier. No one needed to be poor when land was available in the West.

    The founders worried a good deal about people getting too rich. Jefferson was proud of his achievement in abolishing the entail and primogeniture in Virginia, writing the laws that "laid the ax to the root of Pseudoaristocracy." He called for progressive taxation and, like the other founders, feared that the inheritance of wealth would lead to the establishment of an aristocracy. (Contrast this with those today who simultaneously advocate both equality of opportunity and the abolition of estate taxes.) Madison tried to calculate how long the frontier would last, and understood the threat to the Constitution that industrialization would bring; many of the founders thought of wage labor as little better than slavery and hoped that America could remain an agrarian society.

    Of course, the fears about industrialization were realized, and by the late 19th century, in the Gilded Age, income inequality had reached levels comparable to those we see today. In perhaps the most original part of his book, Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, highlights the achievements of the Progressive movement, one of whose aims was taming inequality, and which successfully modified the Constitution. There were four constitutional amendments in seven years - the direct election of senators, the franchise for women, the prohibition of alcohol and the income tax. To which I would add another reform, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which provided a mechanism for handling financial crises without the need for the government to be bailed out by rich bankers, as well as the reduction in the tariff, which favored ordinary people by bringing down the cost of manufactures. Politics can respond to inequality, and the Constitution is not set in stone.

    What of today, when inequality is back in full force? ...

    Angus Deaton, a professor emeritus at Princeton, was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2015.

    anne -> anne... , March 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6_casedeaton.pdf

    March 17, 2017

    Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century
    By Anne Case and Angus Deaton

    Summary

    We build on and extend the findings in Case and Deaton (2015 * ) on increases in mortality and morbidity among white non-Hispanic Americans in midlife since the turn of the century. Increases in all-cause mortality continued unabated to 2015, with additional increases in drug overdoses, suicides, and alcoholic-related liver mortality, particularly among those with a high-school degree or less. The decline in mortality from heart disease has slowed and, most recently, stopped, and this combined with the three other causes is responsible for the increase in all-cause mortality. Not only are educational differences in mortality among whites increasing, but mortality is rising for those without, and falling for those with, a college degree. This is true for non-Hispanic white men and women in all age groups from 25-29 through 60-64. Mortality rates among blacks and Hispanics continue to fall; in 1999, the mortality rate of white non-Hispanics aged 50-54 with only a high-school degree was 30 percent lower than the mortality rate of blacks in the same age group; by 2015, it was 30 percent higher. There are similar crossovers between white and black mortality in all age groups from 25-29 to 60-64.

    Mortality rates in comparable rich countries have continued their pre-millennial fall at the rates that used to characterize the US. In contrast to the US, mortality rates in Europe are falling for those with low levels of educational attainment, and are doing so more rapidly than mortality rates for those with higher levels of education.

    Many commentators have suggested that the poor mortality outcomes can be attributed to slowly growing, stagnant, and even declining incomes; we evaluate this possibility, but find that it cannot provide a comprehensive explanation. In particular, the income profiles for blacks and Hispanics, whose mortality has fallen, are no better than those for whites. Nor is there any evidence in the European data that mortality trends match income trends, in spite of sharply different patterns of median income across countries after the Great Recession.

    We propose a preliminary but plausible story in which cumulative disadvantage over life, in the labor market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health, is triggered by progressively worsening labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of education. This account, which fits much of the data, has the profoundly negative implication that policies, even ones that successfully improve earnings and jobs, or redistribute income, will take many years to reverse the mortality and morbidity increase, and that those in midlife now are likely to do much worse in old age than those currently older than 65. This is in contrast to an account in which resources affect health contemporaneously, so that those in midlife now can expect to do better in old age as they receive Social Security and Medicare. None of this implies that there are no policy levers to be pulled; preventing the over-prescription of opioids is an obvious target that would clearly be helpful.

    * http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/29/1518393112

    Peter K. -> anne... , March 25, 2017 at 01:18 PM
    "Of course, the fears about industrialization were realized, and by the late 19th century, in the Gilded Age, income inequality had reached levels comparable to those we see today. In perhaps the most original part of his book, Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, highlights the achievements of the Progressive movement, one of whose aims was taming inequality, and which successfully modified the Constitution. There were four constitutional amendments in seven years - the direct election of senators, the franchise for women, the prohibition of alcohol and the income tax. To which I would add another reform, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which provided a mechanism for handling financial crises without the need for the government to be bailed out by rich bankers, as well as the reduction in the tariff, which favored ordinary people by bringing down the cost of manufactures. "

    It's interesting that the language of inequality is the language of technocrats, however worthy. It's a way to talk about the politics without referring to Marxist or populist/labor traditions which often involve social movements.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Its interesting that the language of inequality is the language of technocrats, however worthy. Its a way to talk about the politics without referring to Marxist or populist/labor traditions which often involve social movements

    Mar 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> anne... , March 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6_casedeaton.pdf

    March 17, 2017

    Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century
    By Anne Case and Angus Deaton

    Summary

    We build on and extend the findings in Case and Deaton (2015 * ) on increases in mortality and morbidity among white non-Hispanic Americans in midlife since the turn of the century. Increases in all-cause mortality continued unabated to 2015, with additional increases in drug overdoses, suicides, and alcoholic-related liver mortality, particularly among those with a high-school degree or less. The decline in mortality from heart disease has slowed and, most recently, stopped, and this combined with the three other causes is responsible for the increase in all-cause mortality. Not only are educational differences in mortality among whites increasing, but mortality is rising for those without, and falling for those with, a college degree. This is true for non-Hispanic white men and women in all age groups from 25-29 through 60-64. Mortality rates among blacks and Hispanics continue to fall; in 1999, the mortality rate of white non-Hispanics aged 50-54 with only a high-school degree was 30 percent lower than the mortality rate of blacks in the same age group; by 2015, it was 30 percent higher. There are similar crossovers between white and black mortality in all age groups from 25-29 to 60-64.

    Mortality rates in comparable rich countries have continued their pre-millennial fall at the rates that used to characterize the US. In contrast to the US, mortality rates in Europe are falling for those with low levels of educational attainment, and are doing so more rapidly than mortality rates for those with higher levels of education.

    Many commentators have suggested that the poor mortality outcomes can be attributed to slowly growing, stagnant, and even declining incomes; we evaluate this possibility, but find that it cannot provide a comprehensive explanation. In particular, the income profiles for blacks and Hispanics, whose mortality has fallen, are no better than those for whites. Nor is there any evidence in the European data that mortality trends match income trends, in spite of sharply different patterns of median income across countries after the Great Recession.

    We propose a preliminary but plausible story in which cumulative disadvantage over life, in the labor market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health, is triggered by progressively worsening labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of education. This account, which fits much of the data, has the profoundly negative implication that policies, even ones that successfully improve earnings and jobs, or redistribute income, will take many years to reverse the mortality and morbidity increase, and that those in midlife now are likely to do much worse in old age than those currently older than 65. This is in contrast to an account in which resources affect health contemporaneously, so that those in midlife now can expect to do better in old age as they receive Social Security and Medicare. None of this implies that there are no policy levers to be pulled; preventing the over-prescription of opioids is an obvious target that would clearly be helpful.

    * http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/29/1518393112

    Peter K. -> anne... , March 25, 2017 at 01:18 PM
    "Of course, the fears about industrialization were realized, and by the late 19th century, in the Gilded Age, income inequality had reached levels comparable to those we see today. In perhaps the most original part of his book, Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, highlights the achievements of the Progressive movement, one of whose aims was taming inequality, and which successfully modified the Constitution. There were four constitutional amendments in seven years - the direct election of senators, the franchise for women, the prohibition of alcohol and the income tax. To which I would add another reform, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which provided a mechanism for handling financial crises without the need for the government to be bailed out by rich bankers, as well as the reduction in the tariff, which favored ordinary people by bringing down the cost of manufactures. "

    It's interesting that the language of inequality is the language of technocrats, however worthy. It's a way to talk about the politics without referring to Marxist or populist/labor traditions which often involve social movements.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Angry Bear " U.S. Has Worst Wealth Inequality of Any Rich Nation, and It's Not Even Close

    Mar 25, 2017 | angrybearblog.com
    U.S. Has Worst Wealth Inequality of Any Rich Nation, and It's Not Even Close

    Kenneth Thomas | March 19, 2017 6:07 am

    Hot Topics I've discussed the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Reports before, an excellent source of data for both wealth and wealth inequality. The most recent edition , from November 2016, shows the United States getting wealthier, but steadily more unequal in wealth per adult and dropping from 25th to 27th in median wealth per adult since 2014. Moreover, on a global scale, it reports that the top 1% of wealth holders hold 50.8% of the world's wealth (Report, p. 18).

    One important point to bear in mind is that while the United States remains the fourth-highest country for wealth per adult (after Switzerland, Iceland, and Australia) at $344,692, its median wealth per adult has fallen to 27th in the world, down to $44,977. As I have pointed out before, the reason for this is much higher inequality in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. ratio of mean to median wealth per adult is 7.66:1, the highest of all rich countries by a long shot.

    The tables below illustrate this. First, I will present the 29 countries with median wealth per adult over $40,000 per year, from largest to smallest. The second table also includes mean wealth per adult and the mean/median ratio, sorted by the inequality ratio.

    1. Switzerland $244,002
    2. Iceland $188,088
    3. Australia $162,815
    4. Belgium $154,815
    5. New Zealand $135,755
    6. Norway $135,012
    7. Luxembourg $125,452
    8. Japan $120,493
    9. United Kingdom $107,865
    10. Italy $104,105
    11. Singapore $101,386
    12. France $ 99,923
    13. Canada $ 96,664
    14. Netherlands $ 81,118
    15. Ireland $ 80,668
    16. Qatar $ 74,820
    17. Korea $ 64,686
    18. Taiwan $ 63,134
    19. United Arab Emirates $ 62,332
    20. Spain $ 56,500
    21. Malta $ 54,562
    22. Israel $ 54,384
    23. Greece $ 53,266
    24. Austria $ 52,519
    25. Finland $ 52,427
    26. Denmark $ 52,279
    27. United States $ 44,977
    28. Germany $ 42,833
    29. Kuwait $ 40,803

    Source: Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2016, Table 3-1

    Now that I've got your attention, let me remind you why this low level of median wealth is a BIG PROBLEM. Quite simply, we are careening towards a retirement crisis as Baby Boomers like myself find their income drop off a cliff in retirement. As I reported in 2013 , 49% (!) of all private sector workers have no retirement plan at all, not even a crappy 401(k). 31% have only a 401(k), which shifts all the investment risk on to the individual, rather than pooling that risk as Social Security does. And many people had to borrow against their 401(k) during the Great Recession, including 1/3 of people in their forties . The overall savings shortfall is $6.6 trillion! If Republican leaders finally get their wish to gut Social Security, prepare to see levels of elder poverty unlike anything in generations. It will not be pretty.

    Let's move now to the inequality data, where I'll present median wealth per adult, mean wealth per adult, and the mean-to-median ratio, a significant indicator of inequality. These data will be sorted by that ratio.

    1. United States $ 44,977 $344,692 7.66
    2. Denmark $ 52,279 $259,816 4.97
    3. Germany $ 42,833 $185,175 4.32
    4. Austria $ 52,519 $206,002 3.92
    5. Israel $ 54,384 $176,263 3.24
    6. Kuwait $ 40,803 $119,038 2.92
    7. Finland $ 52,427 $146,733 2.80
    8. Canada $ 96,664 $270,179 2.80
    9. Taiwan $ 63,134 $172,847 2.74
    10. Singapore $101,386 $276,885 2.73
    11. United Kingdom $107,865 $288,808 2.68
    12. Ireland $ 80,668 $214,589 2.66
    13. Luxembourg $125,452 $316,466 2.52
    14. Korea $ 64,686 $159,914 2.47
    15. France $ 99,923 $244,365 2.45
    16. United Arab Emirates $ 62,332 $151,098 2.42
    17. Norway $135,012 $312,339 2.31
    18. Australia $162,815 $375,573 2.31
    19. Switzerland $244,002 $561,854 2.30
    20. Netherlands $ 81,118 $184,378 2.27
    21. New Zealand $135,755 $298,930 2.20
    22. Iceland $188,088 $408,595 2.17
    23. Qatar $ 74,820 $161,666 2.16
    24. Malta $ 54,562 $116,185 2.13
    25. Spain $ 56,500 $116,320 2.06
    26. Greece $ 53,266 $103,569 1.94
    27. Italy $104,105 $202,288 1.94
    28. Japan $120,493 $230,946 1.92
    29. Belgium $154,815 $270,613 1.75

    Source: Author's calculations from Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2016, Table 3-1

    As you can see, the U.S. inequality ratio is more than 50% higher than #2 Denmark and fully three times as high as the median country on the list, France. As the title says, this is not even close.

    The message couldn't be clearer: Get down to your town halls and let your Senators and Representatives know that it's time to raise Social Security benefits and forget the nonsense of cutting them.

    Cross-posted from Middle Class Political Economist .

    [Mar 25, 2017] Theyre Like The Praetorian Guard - Whistleblower Confirms NSA Targeted Congress, The Supreme Court, Trump Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. ..."
    "... "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it." ..."
    "... "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded. ..."
    "... Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult. ..."
    "... "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. ..."
    "... "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count." ..."
    "... Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..." ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Chris Menahan via InformationLiberation.com,

    NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House."

    Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.

    "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.

    "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it."

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

    "Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House," Binney said.

    "And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it actually happens," he said.

    "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.

    Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult.

    "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.

    "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."

    Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..."

    Who's going to stop them?

    toady -> Bank_sters Mar 25, 2017 9:22 PM
    I'm continually amazed that anyone thinks they are not being "wiretapped".

    One more time;

    Everyone, from the queen to the homeless guy on the corner, is being tracked, recorded, and data mined to the hilt.

    I hope people start to REALLY understand this....

    NAV GUS100CORRINA Mar 25, 2017 7:19 PM

    Bringing history more up to date, this is Stalinism, i.e., fascism. As John T. Flynn states, "Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Neo-fascism of course is Stalinism-blame Hitler.

    So, is it fascism?

    Yes, says Major Todd Pierce (retired) in an interview with Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss - who says NSA whistle blower Bill Binney has "got to be one of the smartest people in the world, I don't think that's an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest people at the NSA.

    Says Weiss: "And he agrees with me fully. Because he's seen the NSA. We're a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what it really means, and that ultimately is, ultramilitarism and authoritarianism combined with an expansionist foreign policy. And that's us-what you can see us becoming."

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/innocence-worldview-retired/#sthash.XjFDU6km.dpuf

    Rubicon727 -> GUS100CORRINA •Mar 25, 2017 7:38 PM

    The Roman Empire's death was far more complicated than "moral rot" and its "currency devaluation." Read some history books.

    Chris Hedges makes the observation that ALL empires that are scourges of the earth, eventually turn inwards. As the empire begins its fatal decline, the terror they inflicted on outsiders, is then turned against its own citizens.

    We now see that happening in America. Banks, corporations, intel/military, etc. are turning inward: destroying meaningful employment, humane health care, and pilfering billions of $s reserved for the 1%.

    Just Another Vi... -> FriendlyAquaponics •Mar 25, 2017 8:05 PM

    A video worth revisiting......

    Reuters ..........

    ... Obama criticizes Donald Trump endlessly....over Trumps assertions that the election is rigged..,

    telling the candidate to "stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN12I27L

    HRClinton -> JLee2027 •Mar 25, 2017 8:15 PM

    Who does the NSA work for on the Org Chart?

    That's right, the DOD. They can't go completely rogue, without the explicit or implicit approval of the Secretary of Defense and his Deputies.

    It is rather phoney and hypocritical of any POTUS - including Pres. Thump - to moan about the NSA, without loping off heads at the DOD and NSA. By that, I include all the Deputies, who do the real work and know the real secrets.

    It's time that Thump had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with all these guys. Else he's part of the problem, and no amount of sugar coating can stop a turd being a turd.

    TheReplacement -> HRClinton •Mar 25, 2017 9:42 PM

    In an honest world, sure.

    In reality, no. Like Binney said, they don't have to do anything they don't like because NOBODY can prove they haven't complied with orders. There is nobody who can watch the watchers. They can blackmail anyone.

    'Gosh, I have no idea how that child porn got on my computer.'

    CIA or NSA knows exactly how it got there. They put it there.

    [Mar 25, 2017] It's Not Just Unfair: Inequality Is a Threat to Our Governance

    Mar 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM

    , March 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/books/review/crisis-of-the-middle-class-constitution-ganesh-sitaraman-.html

    March 20, 2017

    It's Not Just Unfair: Inequality Is a Threat to Our Governance
    By ANGUS DEATON

    THE CRISIS OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS CONSTITUTION
    Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic
    By Ganesh Sitaraman

    President Obama labeled income inequality "the defining challenge of our time." But why exactly? And why "our time" especially? In part because we now know just how much goes to the very top of the income distribution, and beyond that, we know that recent economic growth, which has been anemic in any case, has accrued mostly to those who were already well-heeled, leaving stagnation or worse for many Americans. But why is this a problem?

    Why am I hurt if Mark Zuckerberg develops Facebook, and gets rich on the proceeds? Some care about the unfairness of income inequality itself, some care about the loss of upward mobility and declining opportunities for our kids and some care about how people get rich - hard work and innovation are O.K., but theft, legal or otherwise, is not. Yet there is one threat of inequality that is widely feared, and that has been debated for thousands of years, which is that inequality can undermine governance. In his fine book, both history and call to arms, Ganesh Sitaraman argues that the contemporary explosion of inequality will destroy the American Constitution, which is and was premised on the existence of a large and thriving middle class. He has done us all a great service, taking an issue of overwhelming public importance, delving into its history, helping understand how our forebears handled it and building a platform to think about it today.

    As recognized since ancient times, the coexistence of very rich and very poor leads to two possibilities, neither a happy one. The rich can rule alone, disenfranchising or even enslaving the poor, or the poor can rise up and confiscate the wealth of the rich. The rich tend to see themselves as better than the poor, a proclivity that is enhanced and even socially sanctioned in modern meritocracies. The poor, with little prospect of economic improvement and no access to political power, "might turn to a demagogue who would overthrow the government - only to become a tyrant. Oligarchy or tyranny, economic inequality meant the end of the republic."

    Some constitutions were written to contain inequalities. In Rome, the patricians ruled, but could be overruled by plebeian tribunes whose role was to protect the poor. There are constitutions with lords and commoners in separate chambers, each with well-defined powers. Sitaraman calls these "class warfare constitutions," and argues that the founding fathers of the United States found another way, a republic of equals. The middle classes, who according to David Hume were obsessed neither with pleasure-seeking, as were the rich, nor with meeting basic necessities, as were the poor, and were thus amenable to reason, could be a firm basis for a republic run in the public interest. There is some sketchy evidence that income and wealth inequality was indeed low in the 18th century, but the crucial point is that early America was an agrarian society of cultivators with an open frontier. No one needed to be poor when land was available in the West.

    The founders worried a good deal about people getting too rich. Jefferson was proud of his achievement in abolishing the entail and primogeniture in Virginia, writing the laws that "laid the ax to the root of Pseudoaristocracy." He called for progressive taxation and, like the other founders, feared that the inheritance of wealth would lead to the establishment of an aristocracy. (Contrast this with those today who simultaneously advocate both equality of opportunity and the abolition of estate taxes.) Madison tried to calculate how long the frontier would last, and understood the threat to the Constitution that industrialization would bring; many of the founders thought of wage labor as little better than slavery and hoped that America could remain an agrarian society.

    Of course, the fears about industrialization were realized, and by the late 19th century, in the Gilded Age, income inequality had reached levels comparable to those we see today. In perhaps the most original part of his book, Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, highlights the achievements of the Progressive movement, one of whose aims was taming inequality, and which successfully modified the Constitution. There were four constitutional amendments in seven years - the direct election of senators, the franchise for women, the prohibition of alcohol and the income tax. To which I would add another reform, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which provided a mechanism for handling financial crises without the need for the government to be bailed out by rich bankers, as well as the reduction in the tariff, which favored ordinary people by bringing down the cost of manufactures. Politics can respond to inequality, and the Constitution is not set in stone.

    What of today, when inequality is back in full force? ...


    Angus Deaton, a professor emeritus at Princeton, was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2015.

    anne -> anne... , March 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/6_casedeaton.pdf

    March 17, 2017

    Mortality and morbidity in the 21st century
    By Anne Case and Angus Deaton

    Summary

    We build on and extend the findings in Case and Deaton (2015 * ) on increases in mortality and morbidity among white non-Hispanic Americans in midlife since the turn of the century. Increases in all-cause mortality continued unabated to 2015, with additional increases in drug overdoses, suicides, and alcoholic-related liver mortality, particularly among those with a high-school degree or less. The decline in mortality from heart disease has slowed and, most recently, stopped, and this combined with the three other causes is responsible for the increase in all-cause mortality. Not only are educational differences in mortality among whites increasing, but mortality is rising for those without, and falling for those with, a college degree. This is true for non-Hispanic white men and women in all age groups from 25-29 through 60-64. Mortality rates among blacks and Hispanics continue to fall; in 1999, the mortality rate of white non-Hispanics aged 50-54 with only a high-school degree was 30 percent lower than the mortality rate of blacks in the same age group; by 2015, it was 30 percent higher. There are similar crossovers between white and black mortality in all age groups from 25-29 to 60-64.

    Mortality rates in comparable rich countries have continued their pre-millennial fall at the rates that used to characterize the US. In contrast to the US, mortality rates in Europe are falling for those with low levels of educational attainment, and are doing so more rapidly than mortality rates for those with higher levels of education.

    Many commentators have suggested that the poor mortality outcomes can be attributed to slowly growing, stagnant, and even declining incomes; we evaluate this possibility, but find that it cannot provide a comprehensive explanation. In particular, the income profiles for blacks and Hispanics, whose mortality has fallen, are no better than those for whites. Nor is there any evidence in the European data that mortality trends match income trends, in spite of sharply different patterns of median income across countries after the Great Recession.

    We propose a preliminary but plausible story in which cumulative disadvantage over life, in the labor market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health, is triggered by progressively worsening labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of education. This account, which fits much of the data, has the profoundly negative implication that policies, even ones that successfully improve earnings and jobs, or redistribute income, will take many years to reverse the mortality and morbidity increase, and that those in midlife now are likely to do much worse in old age than those currently older than 65. This is in contrast to an account in which resources affect health contemporaneously, so that those in midlife now can expect to do better in old age as they receive Social Security and Medicare. None of this implies that there are no policy levers to be pulled; preventing the over-prescription of opioids is an obvious target that would clearly be helpful.

    * http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/29/1518393112

    Peter K. -> anne... , March 25, 2017 at 01:18 PM
    "Of course, the fears about industrialization were realized, and by the late 19th century, in the Gilded Age, income inequality had reached levels comparable to those we see today. In perhaps the most original part of his book, Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, highlights the achievements of the Progressive movement, one of whose aims was taming inequality, and which successfully modified the Constitution. There were four constitutional amendments in seven years - the direct election of senators, the franchise for women, the prohibition of alcohol and the income tax. To which I would add another reform, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which provided a mechanism for handling financial crises without the need for the government to be bailed out by rich bankers, as well as the reduction in the tariff, which favored ordinary people by bringing down the cost of manufactures. "

    It's interesting that the language of inequality is the language of technocrats, however worthy.

    It's a way to talk about the politics without referring to Marxist or populist/labor traditions which often involve social movements.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Hillary and her faction were puppets of deep state. Their liberal interventionist hawk was the same idea as neocons, in many cases it was the same people.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO (Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties, if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in front of you. ..."
    "... I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA ..."
    "... Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then. ..."
    "... having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right. ..."
    "... Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats. ..."
    "... The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State. ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Mark Thomason , March 23, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    This should be no real surprise. Hillary and her faction were neo-Republicans. Their liberal interventionist hawk was the same idea as neocons, in many cases it was the same people.

    They kept control of the party. It is not Democratic in the sense of opposing war or McCarthyism or corporate abuses or Wall Street or trade agreements. It is bought and paid for by the people who were the Republicans all along.

    This is the end state of triangulating courtesy of Bill Clinton. We have two Republican parties, one even crazier than the other.

    Bob In Portland , March 23, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    I suspect that Bill and Hillary Clinton were recruited in the sixties under COINTELPRO (Hillary) and the CIA to do spywork for them. Having been a college student in the late sixties, if you went to a peace rally there was an undercover FBI agent to your left, a CIA asset to your right, a military intelligence officer sitting behind you and a cop from the local red squad in front of you.

    I understand that Bill's friends in England just presumed he was CIA

    Hillary's morphing from Goldwater Girl to neoliberal Democrat occurred while she was hovering around Black Panther legal problems. She observed the Panther trials in New Haven and then spent a summer interning for the law firm in Berkeley that at the time was representing the Black Panthers on the West Coast. The Panthers were the FBI's number one target back then.

    After JFK's removal, the Deep State wanted better control of both parties. Nixon wasn't supposed to be the problem he was for them, so Watergate. But having "moderate" Dems connected to the Deep State is always helpful. It appears that the role of the Clintons in our unwritten history was to move the Democratic Party to the corporate right.

    Perhaps Bill earned his bones with Asa Hutchinson in the 80s by ignoring Mena. Hillary, when serving on the legal staff for the Democratic Watergate Committee, certainly sat in a place where she could report Democratic progress and how various intelligence leaks were viewed by the other Democrats.

    The current "Russia hack/Trump traitor" false flag (I describe it more fully below) was originally to give a self-righteous President Clinton the moral high ground to march into Ukraine, the one thing that Trump wouldn't give the Deep State.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    Interesting speculations. For new readers just getting acquainted with the Deep State, consider the scholarly work by professor Peter Dale Scott. Here are three interviews about his books.

    In the Conversations With History series from UC Berkeley.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBGgxU27kJA

    Deep Politics on the 50th anniversary of JFK's murder.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0CFpMej3mA

    The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QH9yOzhkio

    [Mar 24, 2017] Paltering as a new way to not tell the truth

    Notable quotes:
    "... The palter was to skip the fact that it had broken down twice in the last year, instead saying, "This car drives very smoothly and is very responsive. Just last week it started up with no problems when the temperature was 5 degrees Fahrenheit." The outright lie would have been: "This car has never had problems." Researchers learned that car sellers perceived paltering as more ethical than lying, and thus used it more. ..."
    "... Paltering allows people who consider themselves honest to deceive others while getting the same results that lying would. In a third experiment, participants in a pretend real estate negotiation performed just as well when they paltered as they did when they lied. Their successes didn't come without costs, however. When the deception was discovered, negotiation partners deemed palterers as untrustworthy as liars. ..."
    "... One occasional advantage of paltering over lying is plausible deniability: You can blame any misunderstanding on the listener. ..."
    "... So how can you avoid falling victim? "If you ask a specific question, that specific question should be answered, not a variant of it," Rogers says, even though insistence on clarification "often makes you look like a jerk." ..."
    "... Paltering relies on our tendency to trust others and not cause a scene. ..."
    Mar 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : March 18, 2017 at 08:39 PM , 2017 at 08:39 PM 'Paltering,' a new way to not tell the truth
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/03/17/paltering-new-way-not-tell-truth/TRB2ap22NK5Ya8KjF4x0GI/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
    Matthew Hutson - March 17, 2017

    ... ... ..

    Although paltering occurs in all realms of life, researchers at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government focused on its use in negotiation. In one of eight studies to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, study participants pretended to sell a used car on eBay. They answered the buyer's question "Has this car ever had problems?" with a response selected from a list supplied by the researchers.

    The palter was to skip the fact that it had broken down twice in the last year, instead saying, "This car drives very smoothly and is very responsive. Just last week it started up with no problems when the temperature was 5 degrees Fahrenheit." The outright lie would have been: "This car has never had problems." Researchers learned that car sellers perceived paltering as more ethical than lying, and thus used it more.

    In another study, half of surveyed executives said they paltered in more than "a few" of their negotiations, versus a fifth who said they actively lied more than a few times. Consistent with this discrepancy, executives viewed the behavior as more honest than lying.

    Paltering allows people who consider themselves honest to deceive others while getting the same results that lying would. In a third experiment, participants in a pretend real estate negotiation performed just as well when they paltered as they did when they lied. Their successes didn't come without costs, however. When the deception was discovered, negotiation partners deemed palterers as untrustworthy as liars.

    Another study found that victims saw palterers as less ethical than palterers saw themselves. We have a "broken mental model" of paltering, the researchers have concluded, seeing this behavior as honest when others do not.

    One occasional advantage of paltering over lying is plausible deniability: You can blame any misunderstanding on the listener. Without knowing the speaker's intentions, it's difficult to diagnose paltering with certainty says Todd Rogers, a behavioral scientist at the Kennedy School and the paper's lead author. Few examples are as clear as Bill Clinton's response when asked if he'd had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky: "There is not a sexual relationship - that is accurate." (Note the slick use of present tense.)

    So how can you avoid falling victim? "If you ask a specific question, that specific question should be answered, not a variant of it," Rogers says, even though insistence on clarification "often makes you look like a jerk."

    Paltering relies on our tendency to trust others and not cause a scene. "It's pretty amazing how much you can get away with because of people's truth bias," says David Clementson, a researcher at Ohio State University's School of Communication, who was not involved in the study. "Paltering totally takes advantage of that, diabolically and deceptively."

    Artful Paltering: The Risks and Rewards
    of Using Truthful Statements to Mislead Others
    Rogers, Todd; Zeckhauser, Richard; et al.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
    Vol 112(3), Mar 2017,
    https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspi0000081.pdf

    There's a Word for Using
    Truthful Facts to Deceive: Paltering
    HBR - Francesca Gino - October 05, 2016
    https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering

    [Mar 23, 2017] Inequality is a real threat to any remnants of democracy in the USA

    Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 22, 2017 at 10:27 AM , 2017 at 10:27 AM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/books/review/crisis-of-the-middle-class-constitution-ganesh-sitaraman-.html

    March 20, 2017

    It's Not Just Unfair: Inequality Is a Threat to Our Governance
    By ANGUS DEATON

    THE CRISIS OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS CONSTITUTION
    Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic
    By Ganesh Sitaraman

    President Obama labeled income inequality "the defining challenge of our time." But why exactly? And why "our time" especially? In part because we now know just how much goes to the very top of the income distribution, and beyond that, we know that recent economic growth, which has been anemic in any case, has accrued mostly to those who were already well-heeled, leaving stagnation or worse for many Americans. But why is this a problem?

    Why am I hurt if Mark Zuckerberg develops Facebook, and gets rich on the proceeds? Some care about the unfairness of income inequality itself, some care about the loss of upward mobility and declining opportunities for our kids and some care about how people get rich - hard work and innovation are O.K., but theft, legal or otherwise, is not. Yet there is one threat of inequality that is widely feared, and that has been debated for thousands of years, which is that inequality can undermine governance. In his fine book, both history and call to arms, Ganesh Sitaraman argues that the contemporary explosion of inequality will destroy the American Constitution, which is and was premised on the existence of a large and thriving middle class. He has done us all a great service, taking an issue of overwhelming public importance, delving into its history, helping understand how our forebears handled it and building a platform to think about it today.

    As recognized since ancient times, the coexistence of very rich and very poor leads to two possibilities, neither a happy one. The rich can rule alone, disenfranchising or even enslaving the poor, or the poor can rise up and confiscate the wealth of the rich. The rich tend to see themselves as better than the poor, a proclivity that is enhanced and even socially sanctioned in modern meritocracies. The poor, with little prospect of economic improvement and no access to political power, "might turn to a demagogue who would overthrow the government - only to become a tyrant. Oligarchy or tyranny, economic inequality meant the end of the republic."

    Some constitutions were written to contain inequalities. In Rome, the patricians ruled, but could be overruled by plebeian tribunes whose role was to protect the poor. There are constitutions with lords and commoners in separate chambers, each with well-defined powers. Sitaraman calls these "class warfare constitutions," and argues that the founding fathers of the United States found another way, a republic of equals. The middle classes, who according to David Hume were obsessed neither with pleasure-seeking, as were the rich, nor with meeting basic necessities, as were the poor, and were thus amenable to reason, could be a firm basis for a republic run in the public interest. There is some sketchy evidence that income and wealth inequality was indeed low in the 18th century, but the crucial point is that early America was an agrarian society of cultivators with an open frontier. No one needed to be poor when land was available in the West.

    The founders worried a good deal about people getting too rich. Jefferson was proud of his achievement in abolishing the entail and primogeniture in Virginia, writing the laws that "laid the ax to the root of Pseudoaristocracy." He called for progressive taxation and, like the other founders, feared that the inheritance of wealth would lead to the establishment of an aristocracy. (Contrast this with those today who simultaneously advocate both equality of opportunity and the abolition of estate taxes.) Madison tried to calculate how long the frontier would last, and understood the threat to the Constitution that industrialization would bring; many of the founders thought of wage labor as little better than slavery and hoped that America could remain an agrarian society.

    Of course, the fears about industrialization were realized, and by the late 19th century, in the Gilded Age, income inequality had reached levels comparable to those we see today. In perhaps the most original part of his book, Sitaraman, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, highlights the achievements of the Progressive movement, one of whose aims was taming inequality, and which successfully modified the Constitution. There were four constitutional amendments in seven years - the direct election of senators, the franchise for women, the prohibition of alcohol and the income tax. To which I would add another reform, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which provided a mechanism for handling financial crises without the need for the government to be bailed out by rich bankers, as well as the reduction in the tariff, which favored ordinary people by bringing down the cost of manufactures. Politics can respond to inequality, and the Constitution is not set in stone.

    What of today, when inequality is back in full force? I am not persuaded that we can be saved by the return of a rational and public-spirited middle class, even if I knew exactly how to identify middle-class people, or to measure how well they are doing. Nor is it clear, postelection, whether the threat is an incipient oligarchy or an incipient populist autocracy; our new president tweets from one to the other. And European countries, without America's middle-class Constitution, face some of the same threats, though more from autocracy than from plutocracy, which their constitutions may have helped them resist. Yet it is clear that we in the United States face the looming threat of a takeover of government by those who would use it to enrich themselves together with a continuing disenfranchisement of large segments of the population....


    Angus Deaton, a professor emeritus at Princeton, was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 2015.

    libezkova -> anne... , March 22, 2017 at 04:58 PM
    Thank you Anne.

    As for ".. it is clear that we in the United States face the looming threat of a takeover of government by those who would use it to enrich themselves together with a continuing disenfranchisement of large segments of the population...."

    that was accomplished in 1980 by Reagan. That's why we now can speak about "a colony nation" within the USA which encompasses the majority of population.

    libezkova -> libezkova... , March 22, 2017 at 04:59 PM
    Neoliberals vs the rest of population is like slave owners and the plantation workers.

    [Mar 23, 2017] Jane Harmon on On Point Radio also denied the existence of an American Deep State. That was especially rich coming from a long time supporter of the Military Industrial Complex

    Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Peter Van Erp , March 22, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    "Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State" [Politico]. Yesterday, Jane Harmon on On Point Radio also denied the existence of an American Deep State. That was especially rich coming from a long time supporter of the Military Industrial Complex, and current member of the pundit class from her position as the First Woman to Head the Wilson Center.
    Let the word go forth from this time and place that the government works in your best interests, despite the apparent fact that it doesn't work for most Americans and keeps delivering more and more benefits to the oligarchy. Any attempt to explain it as deliberate policy is a fantasy, a fever dream of rabid leftists right wing nuts.

    Paid Minion , March 22, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    Funny how some are getting their undies in a twist over "foreign interference" in our elections.

    Globalists push global markets, global labor pools, global "race to the bottom" rules for white collar crime. Yet are surprised/offended by "global elections". Especially when the US government interferes (directly or indirectly) with every country on the face of the earth.

    Maybe we should be happy that our government is for sale to the highest bidder, worldwide. After all, global competition has done so much for US business and labor.

    So we have Global Kleptocrats. In charge of the Global Banana Republic.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 22, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    "Domestic interference' is not OK.

    But I think we should ignore it for now, per the Propaganda Ministry.

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:51 am

    Putin forced the Democrats to lose all those ballots in Brooklyn. It's incredible.

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:58 am

    > the deep state

    Watch that definite article. (What that Politico article shows is how easy it is to write sloppy articles about the "deep state." That's because the deep state is such a sloppy, amorphous concept. It's very sloppiness is what makes it simultaneously (a) useful to our scribes in the political class, who can (b) bang out stories with click-baity headlines easily, while (c) disempowering to the rest of us (since to have power over your enemies, you have to understand them).

    [Mar 22, 2017] The Men Who Stole the World

    Notable quotes:
    "... History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century. ..."
    "... Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit. ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "The problem of the last three decades is not the 'vicissitudes of the marketplace,' but rather deliberate actions by the government to redistribute income from the rest of us to the one percent. This pattern of government action shows up in all areas of government policy."

    Dean Baker

    "When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise - to deny the political character of the modern corporation - is not merely to avoid the reality.

    It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error."

    John Kenneth Galbraith

    And unfortunately the working class victims of that disguise are going to be receiving the consequences of their folly, and then some.

    Secure in their monopolies and key positions with regard to reform and the law, the corporations are further acquiring access to the protections of the rights of individuals as well, it appears, at least according to Citizens United .

    Maybe our leaders and their self-proclaimed technocrats will finally do the right thing. I personally doubt it, except that if they do it will probably be by accident.

    More likely, the right thing will eventually come about the old-fashioned way- under the duress of a crisis, and the growing protests of the much neglected and long suffering.

    History will look back at us with the same wonder that we look back on the mad excesses of certain nations founded in devotion to extreme, almost other-worldly, ideologies of the last century.

    ... ... ...

    Apparently the slashing of health benefits for the unfortunate is not severe enough in the proposed Trump/Ryan plan. Our GOP house neo-liberals are enthusiastic to unleash the wonders of the cure-all deregulated market on the American public, again. Like a dog returns to its vomit.

    Better if they start breaking up corporate health monopolies and embrace real reform at the sources of the soaring costs. The US pays far, far too much for drugs and healthcare, and deregulating the markets is not the solution. We do have the example of the rest of the developed world for what to do about this. It is called 'single payer.'

    But players keep on playing. And politicians and their enablers in the professions will not see what their big money donors do not wish them to see. And that is one of their few bipartisan efforts.

    Might one suggest that our political animals stop trying to do all the reforming and cost controls bottom up, while applying the stimulus top down? That approach they have been flogging to no avail for about thirty years is a recipe for a dying middle class.

    Here is a short video from the Bernie Sanders WV town hall that shows The Face of American Desperation. By the way, the governor of West Virginia is a Democrat. He wasn't there.

    ...

    [Mar 21, 2017] Robots and Inequality: A Skeptics Take

    Notable quotes:
    "... And all costs are labor costs. It it isn't labor cost, it's rents and economic profit which mean economic inefficiency. An inefficient economy is unstable. Likely to crash or drive revolution. ..."
    "... Free lunch economics seeks to make labor unnecessary or irrelevant. Labor cost is pure liability. ..."
    "... Yet all the cash for consumption is labor cost, so if labor cost is a liability, then demand is a liability. ..."
    "... Replace workers with robots, then robots must become consumers. ..."
    "... "Replace workers with robots, then robots must become consumers." Well no - the OWNERS of robots must become consumers. ..."
    "... I am old enough to remember the days of good public libraries, free university education, free bus passes for seniors and low land prices. Is the income side of the equation all that counts? ..."
    Mar 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Douglas Campbell:
    Robots and Inequality: A Skeptic's Take : Paul Krugman presents " Robot Geometry " based on Ryan Avent 's "Productivity Paradox". It's more-or-less the skill-biased technological change hypothesis, repackaged. Technology makes workers more productive, which reduces demand for workers, as their effective supply increases. Workers still need to work, with a bad safety net, so they end up moving to low-productivity sectors with lower wages. Meanwhile, the low wages in these sectors makes it inefficient to invest in new technology.
    My question: Are Reagan-Thatcher countries the only ones with robots? My image, perhaps it is wrong, is that plenty of robots operate in Japan and Germany too, and both countries are roughly just as technologically advanced as the US. But Japan and Germany haven't seen the same increase in inequality as the US and other Anglo countries after 1980 (graphs below). What can explain the dramatic differences in inequality across countries? Fairly blunt changes in labor market institutions, that's what. This goes back to Peter Temin's " Treaty of Detroit " paper and the oddly ignored series of papers by Piketty, Saez and coauthors which argues that changes in top marginal tax rates can largely explain the evolution of the Top 1% share of income across countries. (Actually, it goes back further -- people who work in Public Economics had "always" known that pre-tax income is sensitive to tax rates...) They also show that the story of inequality is really a story of incomes at the very top -- changes in other parts of the income distribution are far less dramatic. This evidence also is not suggestive of a story in which inequality is about the returns to skills, or computer usage, or the rise of trade with China. ...

    mulp : , March 21, 2017 at 01:54 AM

    Yet another economist bamboozled by free lunch economics.

    In free lunch economics, you never consider demand impacted by labor cost changed.

    TANSTAAFL so, cut labor costs and consumption must be cut.

    Funny things can be done if money is printed and helicopter dropped unequally.

    Printed money can accumulate in the hands of the rentier cutting labor costs and pocketing the savings without cutting prices.

    Free lunch economics invented the idea price equals cost, but that is grossly distorting.

    And all costs are labor costs. It it isn't labor cost, it's rents and economic profit which mean economic inefficiency. An inefficient economy is unstable. Likely to crash or drive revolution.

    Free lunch economics seeks to make labor unnecessary or irrelevant. Labor cost is pure liability.

    Yet all the cash for consumption is labor cost, so if labor cost is a liability, then demand is a liability.

    Replace workers with robots, then robots must become consumers.

    reason -> mulp... , March 21, 2017 at 03:47 AM
    "Replace workers with robots, then robots must become consumers." Well no - the OWNERS of robots must become consumers.
    reason : , March 21, 2017 at 03:35 AM
    I am old enough to remember the days of good public libraries, free university education, free bus passes for seniors and low land prices. Is the income side of the equation all that counts?
    anne : , March 21, 2017 at 06:37 AM
    https://medium.com/@ryanavent_93844/the-productivity-paradox-aaf05e5e4aad#.brb0426mt

    March 16, 2017

    The productivity paradox
    By Ryan Avent

    People are worried about robots taking jobs. Driverless cars are around the corner. Restaurants and shops increasingly carry the option to order by touchscreen. Google's clever algorithms provide instant translations that are remarkably good.

    But the economy does not feel like one undergoing a technology-driven productivity boom. In the late 1990s, tech optimism was everywhere. At the same time, wages and productivity were rocketing upward. The situation now is completely different. The most recent jobs reports in America and Britain tell the tale. Employment is growing, month after month after month. But wage growth is abysmal. So is productivity growth: not surprising in economies where there are lots of people on the job working for low pay.

    The obvious conclusion, the one lots of people are drawing, is that the robot threat is totally overblown: the fantasy, perhaps, of a bubble-mad Silicon Valley - or an effort to distract from workers' real problems, trade and excessive corporate power. Generally speaking, the problem is not that we've got too much amazing new technology but too little.

    This is not a strawman of my own invention. Robert Gordon makes this case. You can see Matt Yglesias make it here. * Duncan Weldon, for his part, writes: **

    "We are debating a problem we don't have, rather than facing a real crisis that is the polar opposite. Productivity growth has slowed to a crawl over the last 15 or so years, business investment has fallen and wage growth has been weak. If the robot revolution truly was under way, we would see surging capital expenditure and soaring productivity. Right now, that would be a nice 'problem' to have. Instead we have the reality of weak growth and stagnant pay. The real and pressing concern when it comes to the jobs market and automation is that the robots aren't taking our jobs fast enough."

    And in a recent blog post Paul Krugman concluded: *

    "I'd note, however, that it remains peculiar how we're simultaneously worrying that robots will take all our jobs and bemoaning the stalling out of productivity growth. What is the story, really?"

    What is the story, indeed. Let me see if I can tell one. Last fall I published a book: "The Wealth of Humans". In it I set out how rapid technological progress can coincide with lousy growth in pay and productivity. Start with this:

    "Low labour costs discourage investments in labour-saving technology, potentially reducing productivity growth."

    ...

    * http://www.vox.com/2015/7/27/9038829/automation-myth

    ** http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/droids-wont-steal-your-job-they-could-make-you-rich

    *** https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/maid-in-america/

    anne -> anne... , March 21, 2017 at 06:38 AM
    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/843167658577182725

    Paul Krugman @paulkrugman

    But is Ryan Avent saying something different * from the assertion that recent technological progress is capital-biased? **

    * https://medium.com/@ryanavent_93844/the-productivity-paradox-aaf05e5e4aad#.kmb49lrgd

    ** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robots/

    If so, what?

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/capital-biased-technological-progress-an-example-wonkish/

    11:30 AM - 18 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... , March 21, 2017 at 07:00 AM
    This is an old concern in economics; it's "capital-biased technological change," which tends to shift the distribution of income away from workers to the owners of capital....

    -- Paul Krugman

    anne -> anne... , March 21, 2017 at 06:40 AM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/rise-of-the-robots/

    December 8, 2012

    Rise of the Robots
    By Paul Krugman

    Catherine Rampell and Nick Wingfield write about the growing evidence * for "reshoring" of manufacturing to the United States. * They cite several reasons: rising wages in Asia; lower energy costs here; higher transportation costs. In a followup piece, ** however, Rampell cites another factor: robots.

    "The most valuable part of each computer, a motherboard loaded with microprocessors and memory, is already largely made with robots, according to my colleague Quentin Hardy. People do things like fitting in batteries and snapping on screens.

    "As more robots are built, largely by other robots, 'assembly can be done here as well as anywhere else,' said Rob Enderle, an analyst based in San Jose, California, who has been following the computer electronics industry for a quarter-century. 'That will replace most of the workers, though you will need a few people to manage the robots.' "

    Robots mean that labor costs don't matter much, so you might as well locate in advanced countries with large markets and good infrastructure (which may soon not include us, but that's another issue). On the other hand, it's not good news for workers!

    This is an old concern in economics; it's "capital-biased technological change," which tends to shift the distribution of income away from workers to the owners of capital.

    Twenty years ago, when I was writing about globalization and inequality, capital bias didn't look like a big issue; the major changes in income distribution had been among workers (when you include hedge fund managers and CEOs among the workers), rather than between labor and capital. So the academic literature focused almost exclusively on "skill bias", supposedly explaining the rising college premium.

    But the college premium hasn't risen for a while. What has happened, on the other hand, is a notable shift in income away from labor:

    [Graph]

    If this is the wave of the future, it makes nonsense of just about all the conventional wisdom on reducing inequality. Better education won't do much to reduce inequality if the big rewards simply go to those with the most assets. Creating an "opportunity society," or whatever it is the likes of Paul Ryan etc. are selling this week, won't do much if the most important asset you can have in life is, well, lots of assets inherited from your parents. And so on.

    I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of inequality, for several reasons. It didn't seem crucial back in the 1990s, and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism - which shouldn't be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable implications.

    But I think we'd better start paying attention to those implications.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/technology/apple-to-resume-us-manufacturing.html

    ** http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/when-cheap-foreign-labor-gets-less-cheap/

    anne -> anne... , March 21, 2017 at 06:43 AM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=d4ZY

    January 30, 2017

    Compensation of employees as a share of Gross Domestic Income, 1948-2015


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=d507

    January 30, 2017

    Compensation of employees as a share of Gross Domestic Income, 1948-2015

    (Indexed to 1948)

    supersaurus -> anne... , March 21, 2017 at 01:23 PM
    "The most valuable part of each computer, a motherboard loaded with microprocessors and memory, is already largely made with robots, according to my colleague Quentin Hardy. People do things like fitting in batteries and snapping on screens.

    "...already largely made..."? already? circuit boards were almost entirely populated by machines by 1985, and after the rise of surface mount technology you could drop the "almost". in 1990 a single machine could place 40k+/hour parts small enough they were hard to pick up with fingers.

    anne : , March 21, 2017 at 06:37 AM
    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/robot-geometry-very-wonkish/

    March 20, 2017

    Robot Geometry (Very Wonkish)
    By Paul Krugman

    And now for something completely different. Ryan Avent has a nice summary * of the argument in his recent book, trying to explain how dramatic technological change can go along with stagnant real wages and slowish productivity growth. As I understand it, he's arguing that the big tech changes are happening in a limited sector of the economy, and are driving workers into lower-wage and lower-productivity occupations.

    But I have to admit that I was having a bit of a hard time wrapping my mind around exactly what he's saying, or how to picture this in terms of standard economic frameworks. So I found myself wanting to see how much of his story could be captured in a small general equilibrium model - basically the kind of model I learned many years ago when studying the old trade theory.

    Actually, my sense is that this kind of analysis is a bit of a lost art. There was a time when most of trade theory revolved around diagrams illustrating two-country, two-good, two-factor models; these days, not so much. And it's true that little models can be misleading, and geometric reasoning can suck you in way too much. It's also true, however, that this style of modeling can help a lot in thinking through how the pieces of an economy fit together, in ways that algebra or verbal storytelling can't.

    So, an exercise in either clarification or nostalgia - not sure which - using a framework that is basically the Lerner diagram, ** adapted to a different issue.

    Imagine an economy that produces only one good, but can do so using two techniques, A and B, one capital-intensive, one labor-intensive. I represent these techniques in Figure 1 by showing their unit input coefficients:

    [Figure 1]

    Here AB is the economy's unit isoquant, the various combinations of K and L it can use to produce one unit of output. E is the economy's factor endowment; as long as the aggregate ratio of K to L is between the factor intensities of the two techniques, both will be used. In that case, the wage-rental ratio will be the slope of the line AB.

    Wait, there's more. Since any point on the line passing through A and B has the same value, the place where it hits the horizontal axis is the amount of labor it takes to buy one unit of output, the inverse of the real wage rate. And total output is the ratio of the distance along the ray to E divided by the distance to AB, so that distance is 1/GDP.

    You can also derive the allocation of resources between A and B; not to clutter up the diagram even further, I show this in Figure 2, which uses the K/L ratios of the two techniques and the overall endowment E:

    [Figure 2]

    Now, Avent's story. I think it can be represented as technical progress in A, perhaps also making A even more capital-intensive. So this would amount to a movement southwest to a point like A' in Figure 3:

    [Figure 3]

    We can see right away that this will lead to a fall in the real wage, because 1/w must rise. GDP and hence productivity does rise, but maybe not by much if the economy was mostly using the labor-intensive technique.

    And what about allocation of labor between sectors? We can see this in Figure 4, where capital-using technical progress in A actually leads to a higher share of the work force being employed in labor-intensive B:

    [Figure 4]

    So yes, it is possible for a simple general equilibrium analysis to capture a lot of what Avent is saying. That does not, of course, mean that he's empirically right. And there are other things in his argument, such as hypothesized effects on the direction of innovation, that aren't in here.

    But I, at least, find this way of looking at it somewhat clarifying - which, to be honest, may say more about my weirdness and intellectual age than it does about the subject.

    * https://medium.com/@ryanavent_93844/the-productivity-paradox-aaf05e5e4aad#.v9et5b98y

    ** http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/writings/Lerner.pdf

    Shah of Bratpuhr : , March 21, 2017 at 07:27 AM
    Median Wealth per adult (table ends at $40k)

    1. Switzerland $244,002
    2. Iceland $188,088
    3. Australia $162,815
    4. Belgium $154,815
    5. New Zealand $135,755
    6. Norway $135,012
    7. Luxembourg $125,452
    8. Japan $120,493
    9. United Kingdom $107,865
    10. Italy $104,105
    11. Singapore $101,386
    12. France $ 99,923
    13. Canada $ 96,664
    14. Netherlands $ 81,118
    15. Ireland $ 80,668
    16. Qatar $ 74,820
    17. Korea $ 64,686
    18. Taiwan $ 63,134
    19. United Arab Emirates $ 62,332
    20. Spain $ 56,500
    21. Malta $ 54,562
    22. Israel $ 54,384
    23. Greece $ 53,266
    24. Austria $ 52,519
    25. Finland $ 52,427
    26. Denmark $ 52,279
    27. United States $ 44,977
    28. Germany $ 42,833
    29. Kuwait $ 40,803

    http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2017/03/us-has-worst-wealth-inequality-of-any.html

    reason -> Shah of Bratpuhr... , March 21, 2017 at 08:17 AM
    I think this illustrates my point very clearly. If you had charts of wealth by age it would be even clearer. Without a knowledge of the discounted expected value of public pensions it is hard to draw any conclusions from this list.

    I know very definitely that in Australia and the UK people are very reliant on superannuation and housing assets. In both Australia and the UK it is common to sell expensive housing in the capital and move to cheaper coastal locations upon retirement, investing the capital to provide retirement income. Hence a larger median wealth is NEEDED.

    It is hard otherwise to explain the much higher median wealth in Australia and the UK.

    Shah of Bratpuhr : , March 21, 2017 at 07:28 AM
    Median Wealth Average Wealth

    1. United States $ 44,977 $344,692 7.66
    2. Denmark $ 52,279 $259,816 4.97
    3. Germany $ 42,833 $185,175 4.32
    4. Austria $ 52,519 $206,002 3.92
    5. Israel $ 54,384 $176,263 3.24
    6. Kuwait $ 40,803 $119,038 2.92
    7. Finland $ 52,427 $146,733 2.80
    8. Canada $ 96,664 $270,179 2.80
    9. Taiwan $ 63,134 $172,847 2.74
    10. Singapore $101,386 $276,885 2.73
    11. United Kingdom $107,865 $288,808 2.68
    12. Ireland $ 80,668 $214,589 2.66
    13. Luxembourg $125,452 $316,466 2.52
    14. Korea $ 64,686 $159,914 2.47
    15. France $ 99,923 $244,365 2.45
    16. United Arab Emirates $ 62,332 $151,098 2.42
    17. Norway $135,012 $312,339 2.31
    18. Australia $162,815 $375,573 2.31
    19. Switzerland $244,002 $561,854 2.30
    20. Netherlands $ 81,118 $184,378 2.27
    21. New Zealand $135,755 $298,930 2.20
    22. Iceland $188,088 $408,595 2.17
    23. Qatar $ 74,820 $161,666 2.16
    24. Malta $ 54,562 $116,185 2.13
    25. Spain $ 56,500 $116,320 2.06
    26. Greece $ 53,266 $103,569 1.94
    27. Italy $104,105 $202,288 1.94
    28. Japan $120,493 $230,946 1.92
    29. Belgium $154,815 $270,613 1.75

    http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2017/03/us-has-worst-wealth-inequality-of-any.html

    spencer : , March 21, 2017 at 08:06 AM
    Ryan Avent's analysis demonstrates what is wrong with the libertarian, right wing belief that cheap labor is the answer to every problem when in truth cheap labor is the source of many of our problems.
    reason -> spencer... , March 21, 2017 at 08:22 AM
    Spencer,
    as I have said before, I don't really care to much what wages are - I care about income. It is low income that is the problem. I'm a UBI guy, if money is spread around, and workers can say no to exploitation, low wages will not be a problem.
    Sanjait : , March 21, 2017 at 09:32 AM
    This looks good, but also reductive.

    Have we not seen a massive shift in pretax income distribution? Yes ... which tells me that changes in tax rate structures are not the only culprit. Though they are an important culprit.

    reason -> Sanjait... , March 21, 2017 at 09:40 AM
    Maybe - but
    1. changes in taxes can affect incentives (especially think of real investment and corporate taxes and also personal income taxes and executive remuneration);
    2. changes in the distribution of purchasing power can effect the way growth in the economy occurs;
    3. changes in taxes also affect government spending and government spending tends to be more progressively distributed than private income.

    Remember the rule: ceteris is NEVER paribus.

    Longtooth : , March 21, 2017 at 12:28 PM
    Word to the wise:

    Think: Services and Goods

    Composite Services labor hours increase with poor productivity growth - output per hour of labor input. Composite measure of service industry output is notoriously problematic (per BLS BEA).

    Goods labor hours decrease with increasing productivity growth. Goods output per hour easy to measure and with the greatest experience and knowledge.

    Put this together and composite national productivity growth rate can't grow as fast as services consume more of labor hours.

    Simple arithmetic.

    Elaboration on Services productivity measures:

    Now add the composite retail clerk labor hours to engineering labor hours... which dominates in composite labor hours? Duh! So even in services the productivity is weighted heavily to the lowest productivity job market.

    Substitute Hospitality services for Retail Clerk services. Substitute truck drivers services for Hospitality Services, etc., etc., etc.

    I have spent years tracking productivity in goods production of various types ... mining, non-tech hardware production, high tech hardware production in various sectors of high tech. The present rates of productivity growth continue to climb (never decline) relative to the past rates in each goods production sector measured by themselves.

    But the proportion of hours in goods production in U.S. is and has been in continual decline even while value of output has increased in each sector of goods production.

    Here's an interesting way to start thinking about Services productivity.

    There used to be reasonably large services sector in leisure and business travel agents. Now there is nearly none... this has been replaced by on-line computer based booking. So travel agent or equivalent labor hours is now near zippo. Productivity of travel agents went through the roof in the 1990's & 2000's as the number of people / labor hours dropped like a rock. Where did those labor hours end up? They went to lower paying services or left the labor market entirely. So lower paying lower productivity services increased as a proportion of all services, which in composite reduced total serviced productivity.

    You can do the same analysis for hundreds of service jobs that no longer even exist at all --- switch board operators for example when the way of buggy whip makers and horse-shoe services).

    Now take a little ride into the future... not to distant future. When autonomous vehicles become the norm or even a large proportion of vehicles, and commercial drivers (taxi's, trucking, delivery services) go the way of horse-shoe services the labor hours for those services (land transportation of goods & people) will drop precipitously, even as unit deliveries increase, productivity goes through the roof, but since there's almost no labor hours in that service the composite effect on productivity in services will drop because the displaced labor hours will end up in a lower productivity services sector or out of the elabor market entirely.

    Longtooth -> Longtooth... , March 21, 2017 at 12:42 PM
    Economists are having problems reconciling composite productivity growth rates with increasing rates of automation. So they end up saying "no evidence" of automation taking jobs or something to the effect "not to fear, robotics isn't evident as a problem we have to worry about".

    But they know by observation all around them that automation is increasing productivity in the goods sector, so they can't really discount automation as an issue without shutting their eyes to everything they see with their "lying eyes". Thus they know deep down that they will have to be reconcile this with BLS and BEA measures.

    Ten years aog this wasn't even on economist's radars. Today it's at least being looked into with more serious effort.

    Ten years ago politicians weren't even aware of the possibility of any issues with increasing rates of automation... they thought it's always increased with increasing labor demand and growth, so why would that ever change? Ten years ago they concluded it couldn't without even thinking about it for a moment. Today it's on their radar at least as something that bears perhaps a little more thought.

    Not to worry though... in ten more years they'll either have real reason to worry staring them in the face, or they'll have figured out why they were so blind before.

    Reminds me of not recognizing the "shadow banking" enterprises that they didn't see either until after the fact.

    Longtooth -> Longtooth... , March 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM
    Or that they thought the risk rating agencies were providing independent and valid risk analysis so the economists couldn't reconcile the "low level" of market risks risk with everything else so they just assumed "everything" else was really ok too... must be "irrational exuberance" that's to blame.
    Longtooth : , March 21, 2017 at 01:04 PM
    Let me add that the term "robotics" is a subset of automation. The major distinction is only that a form of automation that includes some type of 'articulation' and/or some type of dynamic decision making on the fly (computational branching decision making in nano second speeds) is termed 'robotics' because articulation and dynamic decision making are associated with human capabilities rather then automatic machines.

    It makes no difference whether productivity gains occur by an articulated machine or one that isn't... automation just means replacing people's labor with something that improves humans capacity to produce an output.

    When mechanical leverage was invented 3000 or more years ago it was a form of automation, enabling humans to lift, move heavier objects with less human effort (less human energy).

    Longtooth -> Longtooth... , March 21, 2017 at 01:18 PM
    I meant 3000 years BC.... 5000 years ago or more.

    [Mar 19, 2017] When inequality is driven by extremes at the tail, using median means that you dont see much change in the demographics

    Mar 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova : March 16, 2017 at 09:51 PM , 2017 at 09:51 PM
    "the U.S. middle class - with household incomes ranging from two-thirds to double the national median"

    Median household income in the US in 2015 was less the $60K. Two-thirds is $40K. That's almost poverty not middle class.

    Sociologically the middle class is a quasi-elite of professionals and managers, who are largely immune to economic downturns and trends such as out-sourcing.

    reason -> libezkova... , March 17, 2017 at 04:24 AM
    The definition game? Define something to something else as is being talked about and then claim, claims based on a completely different definition are false?
    Lyle -> libezkova... , March 17, 2017 at 12:47 PM
    Actually with the change in ratio professionals and managers now tend to upper middle class, (29% of us is upper middle now, 32% middle).

    One of the influences is that post WWII it was possible to be middle class and work on an assembly line in a job that was described as check your brain at the door. Automation and process changes have wiped the high pay of such jobs out. Steel makers for example thru mainly process changes (electric furnaces using scrap, continuous casting and the like) mean that it takes 1/5 the hours to produce a ton of steel in did in the 1970s.

    The movement of assembly line jobs to the middle class occured because there was a period where the US was much less involved with the rest of the world economically, because their industries had all been destroyed. The change started during the Johnson admin, and showed up in the high inflation of the Nixon admin.

    cm -> libezkova... , March 17, 2017 at 10:48 PM
    Most "professionals and managers" are nowhere near being immune to downturns and outsourcing, in aggregate.

    You could likewise claim that "low skilled" or any other occupations are "immune" as somewhere around 70-80% of their members continue being employed through tough times, in aggregate.

    If you take "tech", companies laying off around 5-10% or even more of their staff in busts is a frequent enough occurrence. And that's in addition to the "regular" age discrimination and cycling of workers justified with "outdated skills". Being young and (supposedly) impressionable is a skill!

    D. C. Sessions -> libezkova... , March 18, 2017 at 10:16 AM
    "the U.S. middle class - with household incomes ranging from two-thirds to double the national median"

    That's almost tautological. By definition, there can't be a whole lot of change in the population of groups defined relative to median. Income and wealth of those groups, though, can be enlightening.

    Substitute "mean" for "median" and watch what happens. When inequality is driven by extremes at the tail, using "median" means that you don't see much change in the demographics. (Hint: if "middle class" is defined as half to twice the average income, there are damned few in that bracket.)

    [Mar 18, 2017] The Role of Experts in Public Debate

    Notable quotes:
    "... Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage. He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42] ..."
    "... Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith. ..."
    "... I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative advantage. ..."
    "... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ..."
    "... I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know better than to write like that. ..."
    "... Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the rich in the first place ..."
    "... Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated by the experts here. ..."
    "... Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with Samir Amin of Senegal. ..."
    "... A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological preconceptions and justified their intended policies. ..."
    "... A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the cure of a quack. ..."
    "... This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. ..."
    "... I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but you have made powerful enemies. ..."
    "... It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit. ..."
    "... Leave workers exposed to starvation long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.) ..."
    "... It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." ..."
    "... The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.) ..."
    "... Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so intelligent after all!) ..."
    "... C. Wright Mills called them "crackpot realists." ..."
    "... It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos. ..."
    "... Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot society. That"s what this was always about. ..."
    "... Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts", particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed Clinton. ..."
    "... We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves. We need experts who act in the public interest. ..."
    Mar 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    By Sandwichman. Originally published at Angry Bear

    Jonathan Portes asks, " What's the role of experts in the public debate? " He assumes it is his prerogative, as an expert, to define that role:

    I think we have three really important functions.

    First, to explain our basic concepts and most important insights in plain English. Famously, Paul Samuelson, the founder of modern macroeconomics, was asked whether economics told us anything that was true but not obvious. It took him a couple of years, but eventually he gave an excellent and topical example – simply the theory of comparative advantage.

    Similarly, I often say that the most useful thing I did in my 6 years as Chief Economist at DWP was to explain the lump of labour fallacy – that there isn't a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and increased immigration or more women working adds to both labour demand and labour supply – to six successive Secretaries of State. So that's the first.

    Second is to call bullshit.

    O.K. I call bullshit. What Portes explained "to six successive Secretaries of State" was a figment of the imagination of a late 18th century Lancashire magistrate, a self-styled " friend to the poor " who couldn't understand why poor people got so upset about having their wages cut or losing their jobs - to the extent they would go around throwing rocks through windows, breaking machines and burning down factories - when it was obvious to him that it was all for the best and in the long run we would all be better off or else dead.

    I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was simply the return of the repressed - the obverse of "Say's Law" (which was neither Say's nor a Law) that "supply creates its own demand," which John Maynard Keynes demolished in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and that John Kenneth Galbraith subsequently declared " sank without trace " in the wake of Keynes's demolition of it.

    I call bullshit because when Paul Samuelson resurrected the defunct fallacy claim that Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State, he did so on the condition that governments pursued the sorts of "Keynesian" job-creating policies that the discredited principle of "supply creates its own demand" insisted were both unnecessary and counter-productive.

    But the lump of labor argument implies that there is only so much useful remunerative work to be done in any economic system, and that is indeed a fallacy . If proper and sound monetary, fiscal, and pricing policies are being vigorously promulgated , we need not resign ourselves to mass unemployment. And although technological unemployment is not to be shrugged off lightly, its optimal solution lies in offsetting policies that create adequate job opportunities and new skills.

    [Incidentally, as Robert Schiller has noted, the promised prevention of mass unemployment by vigorous policy intervention did not imply the preservation of wage levels. Schiller cited the following passage from the Samuelson textbook, " a decrease in the demand for a particular kind of labor because of technological shifts in an industry can he adapted to - lower relative wages and migration of labor and capital will eventually provide new jobs for the displaced workers."]

    I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was not even Paul Samuelson's policy-animated zombie lump-of-labour fallacy but a supply-side, anti-inflationary retrofit cobbled together by Richard Layard and associates and touted by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder as the Third Way " new supply-side agenda for the left. " Central to that agenda were tax cuts to promote economic growth and "active labour market policies" to foster non-inflationary expansion of employment by making conditions more "flexible" and lower-waged:

    Part-time work and low-paid work are better than no work because they ease the transition from unemployment to jobs.

    Encourage employers to offer 'entry' jobs to the labour market by lowering the burden of tax and social security contributions on low-paid jobs.

    Adjustment will be the easier, the more labour and product markets are working properly. Barriers to employment in relatively low productivity sectors need to be lowered if employees displaced by the productivity gains that are an inherent feature of structural change are to find jobs elsewhere. The labour market needs a low-wage sector in order to make low-skill jobs available.

    I call bullshit because in defending the outcomes of supply-side labour policies, Portes soft-pedaled the stated low-wage objectives of the Third Way agenda. In a London Review of Books review, Portes admitted that "it may drive down wages for the low-skilled, but the effect is small compared to that of other factors (technological change, the national minimum wage and so on)." In the Third Way supply-side agenda, however, a low-wage sector was promoted as a desirable feature - making more low-skill jobs available - not a trivial bug to be brushed aside. In other words, in "driving down wages for the low skilled" the policy was achieving exactly what it was intended to but Portes was "too discreet" to admit that was the stated objectives of the policy.

    dk , March 18, 2017 at 4:47 am

    I found this helpful in better understanding the economics discussed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticism

    Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage. He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42]

    Galbraith also contends that "For most other commodities, where land or ecology places limits on the expansion of capacity, the opposite condition – diminishing returns – is the rule. In this situation, there can be no guarantee that an advantage of relative cost will persist once specialization and the resultant expansion of production take place. A classic and tragic example, studied by Erik Reinert, is transitional Mongolia, a vast grassland with a tiny population and no industry that could compete on world markets. To the World Bank, Mongolia seemed a classic case of comparative advantage in animal husbandry, which in Mongolia consisted of vast herds of cattle, camels, sheep, and goats. Opening of industrial markets collapsed domestic industry, while privatization of the herds prompted the herders to increase their size. This led, within just a few years in the early 1990s, to overgrazing and permanent desertification of the subarctic steppe and, with a slightly colder than normal winter, a massive famine in the herds."

    PlutoniumKun , March 18, 2017 at 5:45 am

    Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith.

    I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative advantage.

    /L , March 18, 2017 at 6:39 am

    James K Galbraith is the son of the famous New Deal economist John K Galbraith.

    John K G:

    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

    "In the case of economics there are no important propositions that cannot be stated in plain language."

    /L , March 18, 2017 at 7:10 am

    John K G on The Art of Good Writing

    "I was an editor of Fortune under Henry Luce, the founder of Time, Inc., who was one of the most ruthless editors that I have ever known, that anyone has ever known. Henry could look over a sheet of copy and say, "This can go, and this can go, and this can go," and you would be left with eight to ten lines which said everything that you had said in twenty lines before.

    And I can still, to this day, not write a page without the feeling that Henry Luce is looking over my shoulder and saying, "That can go." That illuminate one "problem" in our age of internet, unlimited space to be verbose and no editors that de-obscure the writers "thoughts".

    JEHR , March 18, 2017 at 8:24 am

    /L–This site is just wonderful! Anything you want to know about knowing seems to be here. Thanks for the great link.

    sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Recommendation: Wealth, Power and the Crisis of Laissez-Faire Capitalism , by Donald Gibson

    Norb , March 18, 2017 at 8:54 am

    I wonder if this phenomenon – the desirability succinct communication -- was a holdover of earlier times, when accurate communication made the difference between life and death. Settling and developing a continent would place a high value on such purposeful human exchanges.

    Today, we are awash in branding and marketing intended to maintain the current order. The language is used to obfuscate, not clarify experience or goals.

    An expert in any field that has the ability to communicate in a general , popular mode, is of great value to society. Truth and understanding is its main function. Knowledge, or insight that cannot be shared is more often than not just an excuse to hide methods of control and exploitation.

    If citizens can't get the generalities right, the specifics will be impossible to comprehend.

    craazyman , March 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Almost everything can go. I remember seeing a video of the photographer William Klein saying a master photographer is remembered for just a handfull of images. Maybe 10 or 15, tops. Out of probably at least 100,000 serious photos.

    Of course what goes is necessary fertilizer for what doesn't go. You can't avoid it. Hahahah. But you have to let it go anyway. Or your editor has to be williing to cut.

    I've noticed lots and lots of posts here could be a lot better if the post author had said the same thing in half as many words. Most wouldn't lose any persuasion, if they had any to begin with. And they'd gain reader attention for the pruning.

    I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know better than to write like that.

    Having saidd all that, Say was rite. If the supply of labor increases, that createes its own demand for jobs! How is that not completely obvious.

    PlutoniumKun , March 18, 2017 at 9:18 am

    Ah yeah, sorry, getting my JK's mixed up. Both are good.

    fresno dan , March 18, 2017 at 7:03 am

    PlutoniumKun
    March 18, 2017 at 5:45 am

    Huffington Post review has a synopsis of the Ha-Joon Change book. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/a-review-of-ha-joon-chang_b_840417.html
    My favorite:
    Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the rich in the first place

    shinola , March 18, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Thanks for the tip PK & thank you fd for the link to the review. I'm going to check this fellow out; sounds like he has some interesting things to say. One of the "things" that may apply to the above article:

    Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated by the experts here.

    sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with Samir Amin of Senegal.

    Anonymous2 , March 18, 2017 at 8:10 am

    A word of warning from the UK. Denigrate experts too much and you end up like us with government by people who really are inexpert. That is not an improvement.

    Mael Colium , March 18, 2017 at 8:39 am

    Ha! I think an anti brexiter just rolled the white eye.

    Strange that the awful things that the experts told us all would happen haven't and don't look like happening since the people called bullshit on the EU mess. Britain with or without those blokes in dresses up north will do just fine as they steer themselves out of the EU quagmire. I'll take the people anytime anonymous – they have more common sense than the experts. Didn't you read the article?

    Anonymous2 , March 18, 2017 at 9:51 am

    If you are referring to economic forecasters, they, by definition, are not experts.

    sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    Thank you!!!

    I remember back in the 1980s, when so-called "experts" were prattling about such nonsense as . . .

    "Computers don't make mistakes, humans make mistakes !"

    Which was surely untrue as anyone with any real IT expertise back then would have explained that 97% or more of hardware crashes generate software problems (for obvious reasons).

    visitor , March 18, 2017 at 9:16 am

    A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological preconceptions and justified their intended policies.

    A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the cure of a quack.

    voislav , March 18, 2017 at 8:28 am

    This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. This is in chemistry, so things are typically straightforward, no need for convoluted explanations and massaging of the data.

    But people still do it because that's the culture that they've been educated in, a scientific paper has to be high-brow, using obscure words and complicated sentences.

    Steve Ruis , March 18, 2017 at 8:55 am

    I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but you have made powerful enemies.

    It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit.

    Paul Hirschman , March 18, 2017 at 9:03 am

    So in the end, we wind up with Say's Law anyway, since creating a "low wages" sector is exactly how Say's Law functions–supply creates its own demand because declining wages means investment spending can increase, which keeps aggregate demand where it needs to be for full employment.

    This is the solution, we are told, to Keynes "sticky prices." Jim Grant makes this very argument in his book about the "short-lived" crisis of the early 1920s. Leave workers exposed to starvation long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.)

    It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

    The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.)

    Back to managing stagnation.

    Paul Hirschman , March 18, 2017 at 9:09 am

    Managing stagnation is what we have "experts" for in the first place.

    sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so intelligent after all!)

    Just finished a book called, The Death of Expertise , by a professor of national security (oh give me a frigging break!!!!), Tom Nichols.

    Biggest pile of crapola I have ever read! The author was also yearning for the days when "experts" were blindly followed!

    Sandwichman , March 18, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    C. Wright Mills called them "crackpot realists."

    marku52 , March 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos.

    Altandmain , March 18, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    The answer is that said "experts" have failed the general public miserably.

    Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot society. That"s what this was always about.

    Now people wonder, why they don't trust "experts"?

    Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts", particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed Clinton.

    We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves. We need experts who act in the public interest.

    [Mar 17, 2017] "Meals on Wheels America," one such national meal delivery program, says the organization can provide meals for senior citizens for one year for roughly the same cost as just

    Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 16, 2017 at 11:16 AM

    , 2017 at 11:16 AM
    OMG, to give himself and his $Billionaire buddies a big tax break Trump's Budget cuts Meals on Wheels programs that feed the elderly and disabled...

    How cold and cruel is this man?

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-it-costs-meals-on-wheels-to-feed-one-elderly-person-for-a-year-2017-03-16

    "This is how much it costs 'Meals on Wheels' to feed one elderly person for a year"

    By Quentin Fottrell, Personal Finance Editor...Mar 16, 2017...1:01 p.m. ET

    "Among the services that could be impacted under President Trump's budget proposals: Meals on Wheels.

    The administration's cuts target the Department of Housing and Urban Development and call for the elimination of the $3 billion Community Development Block Grant, which helps fund programs including Meals on Wheels services, which deliver food (and human interaction) to elderly, disabled and poor recipients. "The federal government has spent over $150 billion on this block grant since its inception in 1974, but the program is not well-targeted to the poorest populations and has not demonstrated results," the budget proposal states. "The budget devolves community and economic development activities to the state and local level, and redirects federal resources to other activities."

    "Meals on Wheels America," one such national meal delivery program, says the organization can provide meals for senior citizens for one year for roughly the same cost as just one day in a hospital. The annual meal cost is $2,765 for 250 days, while the cost of one day in the hospital is around $2,271, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit, private operating foundation based in Menlo Park, Calif. For "Meals on Wheels People," a Portland, Ore.-based service and one of the largest in the country, says it costs us around $2,500 annually to provide daily meals to a homebound senior, while cost of institutional care for a year in Oregon is around $60,000."...

    [Mar 17, 2017] The rise of elite dynasties, economic inequality, and the vast concentrations of global wealth in recent times means that the role of the family office in our society demands

    Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 16, 2017 at 09:55 AM

    , 2017 at 09:55 AM
    "Ultra-rich protect wealth with spread of 'family offices'"

    Not really a new idea. The Rockefeller Family and one or two others had these from early days of American Dynastic Wealth, however, what is new is the number of wealthy and the amount of wealth they control, not only within a nation but Globally which makes them a new threat to global prosperity and equality - iow, they won't share theirs willingly and must be forced to pay up, the Anti-Trump way.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39285037

    "Ultra-rich protect wealth with spread of 'family offices'"

    By Sean Coughlan, Education correspondent...BBC...16 March 2017

    "The ultra-rich in London are increasingly protecting their wealth through the use of "family offices", says research from the London School of Economics.

    These are teams of professionals - such as lawyers, financiers and psychologists - employed to ensure the "dynastic wealth" of the super-rich.

    These offices work for families worth at least Ł200m, says the study.

    Researcher Luna Glucksberg says their role "demands scrutiny".

    The study, from the LSE's International Inequalities Institute, says more attention should be paid to the rise of such "shadowy" family offices, which are employed full-time to protect the interests of their "elite families".

    The study describes how they support a "bunkered" and "fortified" way of life of the "global super-rich".

    Family offices have grown alongside the concentrations of the ultra-rich in cities such as London - and researchers say they have moved on a step from buying in specialist advisers.

    These are full-time professional staff, which could include investment experts, property advisers, economists, trust fund advisers and lawyers, who work for a single family, in the way that a corporation might have its own dedicated staff.

    The study quotes a US report from 2010 that found that 50 of the wealthiest such family offices were looking after $500bn (Ł407bn).

    Rather than getting external advice from bankers and financiers, these family offices will keep such information private and in-house.

    Their role "goes far beyond that of private bankers", says Dr Glucksberg.

    "They are about creating dynasties, ensuring generational transfers of wealth," she says.

    As well as maximising financial interests and investments, such family offices can look after every aspect of the private lives of their employers.

    This can be everything from buying clothes and organising holidays to arranging divorces and making financial arrangements to prevent money being lost to in-laws.

    The study says that for an individual family to have a family office, they would need to be worth at least Ł200m and probably much more.

    But there are cases of "multi-family offices" - where families worth from Ł80m upwards could share such services.

    The growth of extreme wealth, alongside poverty and low-income families, means that there needs to be more analysis of how such wealth is perpetuated, the study suggests.

    These family offices "play a crucial role" in how advantages are handed on between generations, with full-time staff able to make long-term, strategic planning, says the study.

    "The rise of elite dynasties, economic inequality, and the vast concentrations of global wealth in recent times means that the role of the 'family office' in our society demands scrutiny," says Dr Glucksberg."

    [Mar 17, 2017] America's Two-Track Economy

    Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Median household income in the USA in 2015 was $ 53,889. Census money income is defined as income received on a regular basis before payments for taxes, social security, etc. and does not reflect noncash benefits....
    Peter Dizikes at the MIT News Office:
    America's two-track economy : For many people in America, being middle class isn't what it used to be.
    Consider: In 1971, the U.S. middle class - with household incomes ranging from two-thirds to double the national median - accounted for almost 60 percent of total U.S. earnings. But in 2014, middle-class households earned just about 40 percent of the total national income. And, adjusted for inflation, the incomes of goods-producing workers have been flat since the mid-1970s.
    "We have a fractured society," says MIT economist Peter Temin. "The middle class is vanishing."
    Now Temin, the Elisha Gray II Professor Emeritus of Economics in MIT's Department of Economics, has written a book exploring the topic. "The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy," published this month by MIT Press, examines the plight of middle-income earners and offers some prescriptions for changing our current state of affairs.
    The "dual economy" in the book's title also represents a bracing reflection of America's class schism. Temin, a leading economic historian, draws the term from the work of Nobel Prize winner W. Arthur Lewis, who in the 1950s applied the model of a dual economy to developing countries. In many of those nations, Lewis contended, there was not a single economy but a two-track economy, with one part containing upwardly-mobile, skilled workers and the other part inhabited by subsistence workers.
    Applied to the U.S. today, "The Lewis model actually works," Temin says. "The economy can grow, but it detaches from the [subsistence] sector. Simple as it is, the Lewis model offers the benefit that a good economic model does, which is to clarify your thinking."
    In Temin's terms, updated, America now features what he calls the "FTE sector" - people who work in finance, technology, and electronics - and "the low-wage sector." Workers in the first sector tend to thrive; workers in the second sector usually struggle. Much of the book delves into how the U.S. has developed this way over the last 40 years, and how it might transform itself back into a country with one economy for all.
    Headwinds for workers
    As Temin sees it, there are multiple reasons for the decline in middle-class earning power. To cite one: The decline of unionization, he contends, has reduced the bargaining power available to middle class workers.
    "In the [political and economic] turmoil of the '70s and '80s, the unions declined, and the institutions that had been keeping labor going along with rising productivity were destroyed," Temin says. "It's partly [due to] new technology, globalization, and public policy - it's all of these things. What it did was disconnect wages from the growth in productivity."
    Indeed, from about 1945 until 1975, as Temin documents in the book, U.S. productivity gains and the wage gains of goods-producing workers tracked each other closely. But since 1975, productivity has roughly doubled, while those wages have stayed flat.
    Where "The Vanishing Middle Class" moves well beyond a discussion of basic economic relations, however, is in Temin's insistence that readers consider the interaction of racial politics and economics. As he puts it in the book, "Race plays an important part in discussions of politics related to inequality in the United States."
    To take one example: Again starting in the 1970s, incarceration policies led to an increasing proportion of African-Americans being jailed. Today, Temin notes, about one in three African-American men will serve jail time, which he calls "a very striking figure. You can see how that would just destroy the fabric of a community." After all, those who become imprisoned see a significant reduction in their ability to obtain healthy incomes over their lifetimes.
    For that matter, Temin observes, incarceration has expanded so dramatically it has affected the ability of society to pay for prisons, which may be a factor that limits their further growth. At the moment, he notes in the book, the U.S. states pay roughly $50 billion a year for prisons and roughly $75 billion annually to support higher education.
    Solutions?
    Temin contends in the book that a renewed focus on education is a principal way to distribute opportunities better throughout society.
    "The link between the two parts of the modern dual economy is education, which provides a possible path that children of low-wage workers can take to move into the FTE sector," Temin writes.
    That begins with early-childhood education, which Temin calls "critically important" - although, he says, "in order to continue those benefits, [students] have to build on that foundation. That goes all the way up to college."
    And for students in challenging social and economic circumstances, Temin adds, what matters is not just the simple acquisition of knowledge but the classroom experiences that lead to, as he puts it, "Knowing how to think, how to get on with people, how to cooperate. All the social skills and social capital [are] going to be critically important for kids in this environment."
    In the book Temin bluntly advocates for greater investment in public schools as well as public universities, saying that America's "educational system was the wonder of the 20th century." It still works very well, he notes, for kids at good public schools and for those college students who graduate without burdensome debt.
    But for others, he notes, "We don't have a path for the next generation to have what we expect for a middle-class life [and] not everyone wants to finance it."
    "The Vanishing Middle Class" comes amid increasing scrutiny of class relations in the U.S., but at a time when the public discussion of the topic is still very much evolving. Gerald Jaynes, a professor in the departments of Economics and African American Studies at Yale University, calls Temin's new book "a significant addition to the existing literature on inequality."
    Temin, for his part, hopes that by the end of "The Vanishing Middle Class," readers will agree that a society paying for more education will have made a worthy investment.
    "The people in this country are the resource we have," Temin says. "If we maintain the character of our fellow citizens, that is really our national strength."

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:58 PM in Economics , Income Distribution | Permalink Comments (48) Peter K. : , March 16, 2017 at 01:34 PM

    The [neoliberal] Democrats like Sanjait and PGL deliver a two-track economy and wonder why voter turn-out is low and the white working class are susceptible to demagogues like Trump.

    Why did Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio go for a laughable reality TV star like Trump.

    They expend a lot of energy trying to explain away the obvious like globalization and attacking heretics like Bernie Sanders.

    EMichael says it all about race but ignores the obvious.

    "Indeed, from about 1945 until 1975, as Temin documents in the book, U.S. productivity gains and the wage gains of goods-producing workers tracked each other closely. But since 1975, productivity has roughly doubled, while those wages have stayed flat."

    Interesting that neoliberalism really took off around the 1980s, with Clinton moving the Democrats to the right and endorsing corporate globalization.

    Kaleberg -> Peter K.... , March 16, 2017 at 04:17 PM
    The unions got their power during the New Deal. They were under serious attack in the 1970s with its inflation and its oil shocks. When the government started insisting that blacks get some of the New Deal goodies, conservative whites balked. When push came to shove, they voted for Reagan who promptly killed the unions. It was a suicide deal. If whites had to share prosperity with blacks, then not being prosperous was better. That attitude is around today.

    Neoliberalism was part of it. The Democrats did move to the right. People forget that it was Carter who deregulated the airlines, not Reagan. It was Carter who bought the nonsense about balancing the budget. Hell, it was Carter who started getting tough with the USSR after Nixon's detente.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , March 16, 2017 at 07:17 PM
    The dual economy, they say, as if it were an abstract.

    My Dad was shot in the face in Germany. The Unions were established by the people who established our society.

    The sentiments being expressed here by the people whose existence would not even be possible without the efforts of my Dad, and men like him, are breathtaking.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , March 16, 2017 at 07:34 PM
    Is economics, as a political science, that corrupt ? That it presumes to transcend common decency, and sense ?
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , March 16, 2017 at 07:39 PM
    The current "thinking" and bloviation of main stream Economics, seems to be, that they're wishful thinking, contradicts the accepted, published foundations.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , March 16, 2017 at 07:43 PM
    And thereby, they should be given a pint, and not be recognized as the charlatans that they are,l nut instead, be honored.

    Didn't Shakespeare discuss this very conundrum ?

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , March 16, 2017 at 08:41 PM
    Barrack O'Bama may have been the worst President of all time. Except for George Bush, Bill Clinton, the other Bush, and our favorite life-guard, Ronald Reagan.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , March 16, 2017 at 09:16 PM
    The United States of America.
    MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches; and tho' avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

    But there is another and great distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of Heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

    In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

    Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian World hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred Majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

    As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty as declared by Gideon, and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by Kings.

    All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. "Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar's" is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , March 16, 2017 at 09:29 PM
    Thomas Paine

    The Pamphlet

    http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense3.htm

    Peter K. : , March 16, 2017 at 01:39 PM
    It's funny how Sanjait and PGL don't want to talk about what Krugman wrote in his latest blog post:

    "This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to which left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?

    The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these "populist" voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what happened.

    That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open their eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.

    In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trumpism is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental contradiction is now out in the open."

    https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/populism-and-the-politics-of-health/

    The 1950, 1960 and 1970s saw the civil rights movement, anti-war movement and feminist movements.

    Economics helps with white and male supremacy.

    But the EMichaels, Sanjaits, PGLs, Democrats, Krugmans want to make either/or.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , March 16, 2017 at 01:40 PM
    And the rise of the environmental movement!

    And Krugman is against all of that? WTF!

    RGC : , March 16, 2017 at 01:59 PM
    The division isn't between 2 groups of middle class.

    The division to worry about is between the 99% and the 1%.

    More BS and diversion from mainstream economists.

    Deindustrialization never mentioned by economists - Youngstown was created by free trade policies : , March 16, 2017 at 03:42 PM
    Economists never mention massive deindustrialization as a reason for our country's transformation into a Lewis-modeled developing country.
    pgl : , March 16, 2017 at 04:35 PM
    Peter Temin's CV:

    http://economics.mit.edu/faculty/ptemin/cv

    He is now 79 years old. He has written some brilliant analyzes over his incredible career. His latest is something I must read as this discussion is so spot on regarding the current debate.

    [Mar 10, 2017] Michael Hudson: Retirement? What Social Obligation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... This was Alan Greenspan's trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission. He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that they won't have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions. He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes. He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it's not really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody's pay check, right off the top. ..."
    "... The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we're squeezing out of the wage earners, there's a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don't have to pay for Social Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich. ..."
    "... So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate, stocks and bonds "in their sleep." That's how the five percent have basically been able to make their money. ..."
    "... The Federal Reserve has just published statistics saying the average American family, 55 and 60 years old, only has about $14,000 worth of savings. This isn't nearly enough to retire on. There's also been a vast looting of pension funds, largely by Wall Street. That's why the investment banks have had to pay tens of billions of dollars of penalties for cheating pension funds and other investors. The current risk-free rate of return is 0.1% on government bonds, so the pension funds don't have enough money to pay pensions at the rate that their junk economics advisors forecast. The money that people thought was going to be available for their retirement, all of a sudden isn't. The pretense is that nobody could have forecast this! ..."
    "... In Chile, the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning it to the corporate shell. ..."
    "... We have the highest healthcare costs in the world, so out of your paycheck – which is not increasing – you're going to have to pay more and more for FICA withholding for Social Security, more and more for healthcare, for the pharmaceutical monopoly and the health insurance monopoly. You'll also have to pay more and more to use public services for transportation to get to work, because the state is not funding that anymore. We're cutting taxes on the rich, so we don't have the money to do what social democracies are supposed to do. You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation. ..."
    "... "Classical and neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology: Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream worlds that are used to present particular 'results'. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through a process of working backwards from the desired 'conclusions', to establish the kind of model that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model by choosing suitable assumptions and 'axioms'. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion." ..."
    "... "Progress in economics and finance research would require researchers to build on the correct insights derived by economists at least since the 19th century (such as Macleod, 1856). The overview of the literature on how banks function, in this paper and in Werner (2014b), has revealed that economics and finance as research disciplines have on this topic failed to progress in the 20th century. The movement from the accurate credit creation theory to the misleading, inconsistent and incorrect fractional reserve theory to today's dominant, yet wholly implausible and blatantly wrong financial intermediation theory indicates that economists and finance researchers have not progressed, but instead regressed throughout the past century. That was already Schumpeter's (1954) assessment, and things have since further moved away from the credit creation theory." ..."
    "... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
    "... it insults the intelligence of the audience, ..."
    "... we would now call ..."
    "... totally insupportable on its face. ..."
    "... as a corporate, spiritually mandated obligation, ..."
    "... You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation. ..."
    "... Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues? Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars? ..."
    "... "You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary 'financial/real estate/public enterprise' class that is transforming the economy." ..."
    "... "The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to displace the guild masters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers d'industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus. ..."
    "... The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. " ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on March 9, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. This Real News Network interview is from a multi-part series about Michael Hudson's new book, J is for Junk Economics. And after a lively discussion by readers of the economic necessity of many to become expats to get their living costs down to a viable level, a discussion of the disingenuous political messaging around retirement seemed likely. Among the people in my age cohort, the ones that managed to attach themselves to capital (being in finance long enough at a senior enough level, working in Corporate America and stock or stock options) are generally set to have an adequate to very comfortable retirement. The ones who didn't (and these include people I know who are very well paid professionals but for various reasons, like health problems or periods of unemployment that drained savings, haven't put much away) will either have to continue working well past a normal retirement age (even charitably assuming they can find adequately compensated work) or face a struggle or even poverty.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/cdv9EvWxkdc

    SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore. I'm speaking with Michael Hudson about his new book J Is For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception.

    Thanks for joining me again, Michael.

    MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here.

    SHARMINI PERIES: So, Michael, on page 260 of your book you deal with the issue of Social Security and it's a myth that Social Security should be pre-funded by its beneficiaries, or that progressive taxes should be abolished in favor of a flat tax. Just one tax rate for everyone you criticize. We talked about this earlier, but let's apply what this actually means when it comes to Social Security.

    MICHAEL HUDSON: The mythology aims to convince people that if they're the beneficiaries of Social Security, they should be responsible for saving up to pre-fund it. That's like saying that you're the beneficiary of public education, so you have to pay for the schooling. You're the beneficiary of healthcare, you have to save up to pay for that. You're the beneficiary of America's military spending that keeps us from being invaded next week by Russia, you have to spend for all that – in advance, and lend the money to the government for when it's needed.

    Where do you draw the line? Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society. You had the first public pension (social security) program in Germany under Bismarck. The whole idea is that this is a public obligation. There are certain rights of citizens, and among these rights is that after your working life you deserve to live in retirement. That means that you have to be able to afford this retirement, and not have to beg in the street for money. The wool that's been pulled over people's eyes is to imagine that because they're the beneficiaries of Social Security, they have to actually pay for it.

    This was Alan Greenspan's trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission. He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that they won't have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions. He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes. He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it's not really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody's pay check, right off the top.

    The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we're squeezing out of the wage earners, there's a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don't have to pay for Social Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich.

    So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate, stocks and bonds "in their sleep." That's how the five percent have basically been able to make their money.

    The idea that Social Security has to be funded by its beneficiaries has been a setup for the wealthy to claim that the government budget doesn't have enough money to keep paying. Social Security may begin to run a budget deficit. After having run a surplus since 1933, for 70 years, now we have to begin paying some of this savings out. That's called a deficit, as if it's a disaster and we have to begin cutting back Social Security. The implication is that wage earners will have to starve in the street after they retire.

    The Federal Reserve has just published statistics saying the average American family, 55 and 60 years old, only has about $14,000 worth of savings. This isn't nearly enough to retire on. There's also been a vast looting of pension funds, largely by Wall Street. That's why the investment banks have had to pay tens of billions of dollars of penalties for cheating pension funds and other investors. The current risk-free rate of return is 0.1% on government bonds, so the pension funds don't have enough money to pay pensions at the rate that their junk economics advisors forecast. The money that people thought was going to be available for their retirement, all of a sudden isn't. The pretense is that nobody could have forecast this!

    There are so many corporate pension funds that are going bankrupt that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation doesn't have enough money to bail them out. The PBGC is in deficit. If you're going to be a corporate raider, if you're going to be a Governor Romney or whatever and you take over a company, you do what Sam Zell did with the Chicago Tribune: You loot the pension fund, you empty it out to pay the bondholders that have lent you the money to buy out the company. You then tell the workers, "I'm sorry there is nothing there. It's wiped out." Half of the employee stock ownership programs go bankrupt. That was already a critique made in the 1950s and '60s.

    In Chile, the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning it to the corporate shell.

    So it's become a shell game. There's really no Social Security problem. Of course the government has enough tax revenue to pay Social Security. That's what the tax system is all about. Just look at our military spending. But if you do what Donald Trump does, and say that you're not going to tax the rich; and if you do what Alan Greenspan did and not make higher-income individuals contribute to the Social Security system, then of course it's going to show a deficit. It's supposed to show a deficit when more people retire. It was always intended to show a deficit. But now that the government actually isn't using Social Security surpluses to pretend that it can afford to cut taxes on the rich, they're baiting and switching. This is basically part of the shell game. Explaining its myth is partly what I try to do in my book.

    SHARMINI PERIES: If the rich people don't have to contribute to the Social Security base, are they able to draw on it?

    MICHAEL HUDSON: They will draw Social Security up to the given wage that they didn't pay Social Security on, which is up to $120,000 these days. So yes, they will get that little bit. But what people make over $120,000 is completely exempt from the Social Security system. These are the rich people who run corporations and give themselves golden parachutes.

    Even for companies that have engaged in massive financial fraud, the large banks, City Bank, Wells Fargo – all these have golden parachutes. They still are getting enormous pensions for the rest of their lives. And they're talking as if, well, corporate pensions are in deficit, but for the leading officers, arrangements are quite different from the pensions to the blue collar workers and the wage earners as a whole. So there's a whole array of fictitious economic statistics.

    I describe this in my dictionary as "mathiness." The idea that if you can put a number on something, it somehow is scientific. But the number really is the product of corporate accountants and lobbyists reclassifying income in a way that it doesn't appear to be taxable income.

    Taking money out and giving it to the richest 5%, while making it appear as if all this deficit is the problem of the 95%, is "blame the victim" economics. You could say that's the way the economic accounts are being presented by Congress to the American people. The aim is to popularize a "blame the victim" economics. As if it's your fault that Social Security's going bankrupt. This is a mythology saying that we should not treat retirement as a public obligation. It's becoming the same as treating healthcare as not being a public obligation.

    We have the highest healthcare costs in the world, so out of your paycheck – which is not increasing – you're going to have to pay more and more for FICA withholding for Social Security, more and more for healthcare, for the pharmaceutical monopoly and the health insurance monopoly. You'll also have to pay more and more to use public services for transportation to get to work, because the state is not funding that anymore. We're cutting taxes on the rich, so we don't have the money to do what social democracies are supposed to do. You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation.

    You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary "financial/real estate/public enterprise" class that is transforming the economy.

    SHARMINI PERIES All right, Michael. Many, many, many things to learn from your great book, J Is For Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in the Age of Deception. Michael is actually on the road promoting the book. So if you have an opportunity to see him at one of the places he's going to be speaking, you should check out his website, michael-hudson.com

    So I thank you so much for joining us today, Michael. And as most of you know, Michael Hudson is a regular guest on The Real News Network. We'll be unpacking his book and some of the concepts in it on an ongoing basis. So please stay tuned for those interviews.

    Thank you so much for joining us today, Michael.

    craazyman , March 9, 2017 at 10:10 am

    It's 10 bagger time for sure. A house in the tropics with servants at your beck and call. Breakfast on the veranda. Lunch at the club. An afternoon sail. Dinner at the house of a famous author. Or some native woman who cooks spicy food and is hotter than the sun. No shuffleboard and pills! You need to stay buff if you wanna live like this. You can't be flabby and short of breath.

    j84ustin , March 9, 2017 at 10:21 am

    Thanks for this.

    flora , March 9, 2017 at 11:47 am

    +1. Yes. Great post. Very clear explanation of Greenspan's SocSec bait-and-switch.

    PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 10:32 am

    Yves's remark on retirement by sector is apt. I laugh bitter tears when I see that a financial CEO contract always includes a "pension," as if the tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses weren't enough.

    A "pension" is for those who, broken by a life of hard physical labor, finally can't work any more for their crust of bread. It's not another revenue line-item that's barely enough to refuel the yacht.

    There was a time when people "saved for retirement." With real rates of return being negative, and all assets priced arbitrarily at the whim of the central bank's policy du jour, I am perfectly frank when people ask "what should they invest in": nothing. Pay down your debt, and spend whatever you have beyond an emergency cushion right now, while you can enjoy it. Savings will inevitably be wasted, by inflation, the "health-care system," or financial-sector scammers. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

    This is all in the context of the Federal Government already spending 20% of GDP, a number that was never designed to happen. It is the States that were supposed to be in charge of the people's welfare, not the national authority. So the argument that we should increase Federal taxes to somehow redistribute wealth is also wrong, because that wealth will simply be wasted, spent by people who are responsible to no one.

    At moments like this there are no good choices. Most Europeans have long learned to live with governments that were hostile to them, and that is where we stand now.

    Tocqueville's Democracy In America is tough going in spots, but my gosh, what a beautiful world he depicts, when the average Pennsylvanian's tax liability beyond his township was $4 a year.

    a different chris , March 9, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    I won't argue too hard about your "Federal vs State" argument, but note that if the state is in charge of most taxation then Richy Rich can live in a low tax state next door and employ the well-educated, healthy (single-payer) people in your state.

    Sound of the Suburbs , March 9, 2017 at 10:38 am

    Just got my copy of "J is for Junk Economics"

    Other people are on the same wavelength.

    Professor Werner moving from reality to fantasy:

    "Classical and neo-classical economics, as dominant today, has used the deductive methodology: Untested axioms and unrealistic assumptions are the basis for the formulation of theoretical dream worlds that are used to present particular 'results'. As discussed in Werner (2005), this methodology is particularly suited to deriving and justifying preconceived ideas and conclusions, through a process of working backwards from the desired 'conclusions', to establish the kind of model that can deliver them, and then formulating the kind of framework that could justify this model by choosing suitable assumptions and 'axioms'. In other words, the deductive methodology is uniquely suited for manipulation by being based on axioms and assumptions that can be picked at will in order to obtain pre-determined desired outcomes and justify favoured policy recommendations. It can be said that the deductive methodology is useful for producing arguments that may give a scientific appearance, but are merely presenting a pre-determined opinion."

    "Progress in economics and finance research would require researchers to build on the correct insights derived by economists at least since the 19th century (such as Macleod, 1856). The overview of the literature on how banks function, in this paper and in Werner (2014b), has revealed that economics and finance as research disciplines have on this topic failed to progress in the 20th century. The movement from the accurate credit creation theory to the misleading, inconsistent and incorrect fractional reserve theory to today's dominant, yet wholly implausible and blatantly wrong financial intermediation theory indicates that economists and finance researchers have not progressed, but instead regressed throughout the past century. That was already Schumpeter's (1954) assessment, and things have since further moved away from the credit creation theory."

    "A lost century in economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence" Richard A. Werner

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477

    Even the BoE has quietly come clean about money.

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

    Leaving Paul Krugman looking rather foolish

    " banks make their profits by taking in deposits and lending the funds out at a higher rate of interest" Paul Krugman, 2015.

    No, it doesn't work like that Paul.

    Sound of the Suburbs , March 9, 2017 at 10:46 am

    The facts tell all.

    Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy" in 1989.

    Capitalism had conquered all and was the one remaining system left that had stood the test of time.

    With such a successful track record, everything was being changed to a new neo-liberal ideology and globalization was used to test this new ideology everywhere.

    The Great Moderation seemed to indicate that the new ideology was a great success.

    "Seemed" is the operative word here.

    A "black swan" arrives in 2008 and nothing is the same again, the Central Bankers pump in trillions to maintain the new normal of secular stagnation.

    Sovereign debt crises erupt, the Euro-zone starts to disintegrate, austerity becomes the norm., no one knows how to restore growth and the populists rise.

    A new ideology comes in that is rolled out globally and seems to work before 2008.

    What happened in 2008?

    This is the build up to 2008 that can be seen in the money supply (money = debt):

    http://www.whichwayhome.com/skin/frontend/default/wwgcomcatalogarticles/images/articles/whichwayhomes/US-money-supply.jpg

    Everything is reflected in the money supply.

    The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.

    Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.

    When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).

    The theory.

    Irving Fisher produced the theory of debt deflation in the 1930s.

    Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial instability Hypothesis" in 1974.
    Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005.

    You can see what Steve Keen saw in the graph above, it's impossible to miss when you know what you are looking for but no one in the mainstream did.

    The hidden secret of money.

    Money = Debt

    From the BoE:
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

    If you paid off all the debt there would be no money.

    Money and debt are opposite side of the same coin, matter and anti-matter.

    The money supply reflects debt/credit bubbles.

    Monetary theory has been regressing for over 100 years to today's abysmal theory where banks act as intermediaries and don't create and destroy money.

    The success of earlier years was mainly due to money creation from new debt (mainly in housing booms) globally feeding into economies leaving a terrible debt over-hang.

    Jam today, penury tomorrow.

    This is how debt works.

    Twelve people were officially recognised by Bezemer in 2009 as having seen 2008 coming, announcing it publicly beforehand and having good reasoning behind their predictions (Michael Hudson and Steve Keen are on the list of 12).

    They all saw the problem being excessive debt with debt being used to inflate asset prices (US housing).

    The Euro's periphery nations had unbelievably low interest rates with the Euro, the risks were now based on common debt service. Mass borrowing and spending occurs at the periphery with the associated money creation causing positive feedback.

    Years later, it was found the common debt service didn't actually exist and interest rates correct for the new reality.

    Jam today, penury tomorrow.

    Why doesn't austerity work? (although it has been used nearly everywhere)

    You need to understand money, debt, money creation and destruction on bank balance sheets and its effect on the money supply. Almost no one does.

    Richard Koo does:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

    Ben Bernanke read Richard Koo's book and stopped the US going over the fiscal cliff by cutting government spending.

    Sound of the Suburbs , March 9, 2017 at 11:20 am

    Alternative and I would say much more accurate realities:

    1) Michael Hudson "Killing the Host", "J is for Junk Economics"

    The knowledge of economic history and the classical economists that has been lost and the problems this is causing. Ancient Sumer had more enlightened views on debt than we have today.

    2) Steve Keen "De-bunking Economics"

    His work is based on that of Hyman Minsky and looks into the effects of private debt on the economy and the inflation of asset bubbles with debt.

    3) Richard Werner "Where does money come from?"

    The only book generally available that tells the truth about money, I don't think there are any other modern books that do and certainly not in economics textbooks

    4) Richard Koo's study on the Great Depression and Japan after 1989 showing the only way out of debt deflation/balance sheet recessions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

    Sound of the Suburbs , March 9, 2017 at 11:55 am

    The BoE:

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

    The BoE have made a mistake.

    "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system."

    The limit for money creation holds true when banks keep the debt they issue on their own books.

    The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get them off their books.

    Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages, e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books.

    Money is being created freely and without limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.

    Dead Dog , March 9, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    Thanks SOS, agree. We're at that 08 point now, in fact it's worse.

    Pensions should just be a click of the computer, no borrowings, savings or taxes needed and they need to be sufficient to live on.

    No, we aren't 'winning'

    In Australia, we used to give people the 'aged' at 60 for women and 65 for men. Now its 67 for both, the woman's aged cut in was raised for 'equality' reasons, and it going up to 70 for my kids.

    Politicians, judges, CEOs and the c-class, all those 'shiny bums', they can often work well into their 60s. The rest of us experience age discrimination in a tight job market and are forced into menial jobs just when society should be funding their well earned retirement.

    diogenes , March 9, 2017 at 10:41 am

    The whole "there aren't enough workers to support retirees" meme is risible.

    Example: Jane funds an IRA for 30 years. For those 30 years, there is one person paying in, and zero taking out. When Jane retires, the IRA flips to one person taking out, and zero paying in.

    Disaster, or working as advertised?

    That Serious Thinkers, elected officials and the SSA themselves advance this trope to explain why SS is hopeless is proof of willful mendacity.

    Now if these folks admit, well yuh, you paid in over all of these years, but the money ain't there no more, then first, that's an admission of mismanagement (unsurprising), and second, bail us the fuck out like you did Wall Street.

    inhibi , March 9, 2017 at 11:48 am

    Most every purported "help" by the government is the exact opposite: your paying into a black hole.

    Look around you. What around you was paid for by the government? The answer is none of it was. Taxes are a way to keep the bureaucratic structure afloat. What is very clear is that once government reaches a certain size it begins to massively leach off of those that work and gives it to those that "manage".

    Look at any industry today and you will find, in the private sector, declining or stagnant wages for the "drones". Then look at the public sector: expanding, better benefits, better wages, less work etc. Thinking about it makes my blood boil. I see truckers making less now then 10 years ago, yet, the industry keeps crying that they "don't have enough workers". Yeah, sorry no one wants to work 25/8 driving around in the day time, sleeping in a truck at night, getting tracked through GPS & get penalized for going above speed limits when they can work for the DMV, make the same amount, and sit at a desk for 7 hours a day with plenty of benefits and vacation time.

    Its about time for this system to implode. I see globalization and government expansion as a huge force that will eventually cause a revolution in the States.

    Art Eclectic , March 9, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Globalization and the government are simply red herrings meant to distract Trump voters while shareholder value driven corporate overlords continue looting.

    a different chris , March 9, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    Look around you . The government employs less people than pretty much for my whole life. Please get informed before you go off on a multi-paragraph rant.

    http://historyinpieces.com/research/federal-personnel-numbers-1962

    If you want a job join the military. Do you think that's a good option?

    jrs , March 9, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    maybe noone should work in trucking, freight trains are much more energy efficient as far as a means of transporting goods over long distances. Nah I'm not faulting truckers, just saying it makes no societal sense is all except maybe for the last few miles, but then neither do a lot of things. I doubt many people want to work at the DMV, but then maybe the benefits are enough to make a distasteful job seem worth it.

    Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    ISTR reading that the creators of the 401k saying that they never intended it to be a replacement for a pension.

    PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 11:05 am

    As usual, the abuse of history is the outstanding credibility-buster in this piece. When an author says this,

    Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society.

    why should I believe anything else that he has to say?

    The sole instance given is of Bismarck's Germany, actually ground-breaking in its social welfare policies, which came only in the last part of the 19th century.

    For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected to live long enough to retire.

    Indeed, retirement in past centuries had a different denotation. Its common use was among the aristocracy, when one of that number determined to remove himself from active (urban) social or political life and withdraw (hence the etymology, "re-tirer"), usually to the country.

    Haygood had to resuscitate "rusticate" for the other day, to achieve a modern equivalent of that.

    All of this is common knowledge. In case you don't think so, spend five minutes with any book of demographics or social history; and that's just for Europe. Don't let's even ask what "nobody expected to pay for their retirement" meant in early nineteenth-century Alabama.

    By the way, Hudson does this all the time. When I can fact-check offhand, from my fund of common knowledge, he is often casually abusing the truth. I can be pretty sure that the rest of what he says is just as unreliable.

    Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    Didn't Bismarck create those social welfare programs in order to prevent unrest in a recently unified Germany?

    MBC , March 9, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    You may be correct about the 19th century, but it is 2017. And his points about the US tax system, the banks, the wealthiest 1% and our gov't deceiving the middle and lower class are solid. A very basic retirement and healthcare should be provided to all in any decent marginally successful society. Not to mention a supposedly "great" one.

    Rick Zhang , March 9, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    I think this is where some progressive get tripped up and don't understand why their policies aren't more popular to the wide swaths of America outside of their bubble.

    Often times, these people (I use this term loosely to include working class whites in Appalachia as well as Silicon Valley libertarians) like to provide a fair and wide safety net. However, most policies that are advanced are strictly means tested. This causes significant resentment among those just outside of the cutoff lines. Think: Social Security has essentially blanket coverage. Yes, there's some redistribution going on behind the scenes, but if I pay in for 30 years I will get most of my money back. It's wildly popular, while welfare programs are not.

    The same applies for health care – Medicare is popular and Medicaid is not. If I pay in for a government program, I want to be able to take advantage of it. Save me the crap about not wanting to subsidize the lifestyles of the 1%; they pay in far more than they would take out of the program. It's a small price to pay to have universal coverage and buy in from all segments of society. So extending Medicare down to everyone is a better political strategy than extending Medicaid upwards to encompass higher income levels.

    More reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/business/economy/trump-budget-entitlements-working-class.html

    Rick Zhang @ Millennial Lifehacker

    Hans Suter , March 9, 2017 at 12:57 pm

    why don't try to educate yourself, you may start here https://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-history-of-retirement-in-the-united-states/

    a different chris , March 9, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    You read a great deal into a statement that you didn't at all prove was untrue. Not impressive.

    The question is, did society believe that it had a responsibility of care for people that got too old to work? You didn't even address that. Yes we know life was "nasty, brutish and (most often) short. That doesn't invalidate what he said.

    Dead Dog , March 9, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    PhilM 'I can be pretty sure that the rest of what he says is just as unreliable.'

    No mate, he speaks truth and may have exaggerated, but the point remains that here, the UK, most of Europe – then the state funds your pension if you need one. It is now a social obligation. Only in the US, do you have this class of people (the working class) who don't deserve retirement and must fund their own meagre pensions, and if the 'pool which funds the pensions' becomes insufficient, well you know the rest.

    Taxes see, they fund things, or more often don't, because it's a widely accepted lie to keep the private bank money creation bullshit going forever.

    PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    That's the problem, Dog, I generally agree with his point, and with the responders to my comment, on policy grounds. My point is that leading with something that is provably false, and even probably false to common knowledge, is not a winning tactic; some would say it insults the intelligence of the audience, even.

    To me this site, if it's about anything, is about filtering out the BS that is used by people with an agenda to "enhance" their arguments. Lambert does this with a Lancelot-sized skewer. And part of the beauty is the crowd-sourced fact-checking from an extraordinarily informed, and sceptical, community.

    I may not have much to add to their expertise, but one thing I do know is some European history, and it drives me berzerk to see people just misuse history as if it strengthens their argument. If they don't know that what they are saying is true, they should not say it. And by "know it is true," I mean, know the source, and the source of the source, and be able to judge its reliability. That is what scholarship is all about: seeing how far down the turtles go.

    So when someone just tosses out an assertion about "what the past thought was right," as if that created a moral obligation or not in 2017 (which as MBC quite rightly observed it does not, at least not without a clearer argument), they should be critiqued. When their assertion is based on sloppy cherry-picked facts and wrongly generalized, they should be called out as either uninformed or malicious, in hopes they will be less so in the future.

    That's all I was saying; I did not have a point to make about pensions, because I agree with Hudson's viewpoints almost all the time, which is why it is so sad to see him turn out to be so cheesy, so often.

    My personal experience of pensions is this: they are a total scam to lock people into exploitive, nearly intolerable working conditions on the flimsiest of promises in the private sector; and in the public sector, they are a way of adding to the debt burden of generations yet to come without the assent of the people: taxation without representation, in effect.

    I have seen professionals crumble morally thanks to the force of the pension. It is despicable corporate oppression at the subtle level, because it looks as if they are doing a good thing, which of course they are not. It's more subtle than their obvious screaming cruelties to people and animals and the land, which, it must also be said, nobody does anything about either.

    Dead Dog , March 9, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    Thanks for replying Phil. Good points.

    Yes pension systems aren't perfect, but some people don't have family or money to fall back on when they get old. I am seeing more and more of my own friends in their 60s struggling to earn money through work. They want to stop, but can't afford to.

    And, I am dismayed and disheartened of seeing people on the sidewalks that could be my parents. Or, shit, me

    Rick Zhang , March 9, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    I have no sympathy for these people. Read Hillbilly Elegy and see the perspective from the white working class. More often than not, people who are "struggling" in mid life are those who made bad choices. They abused drugs, had kids out of wedlock, or didn't make a career for themselves. Often, they spend poorly – on luxury items and consuming excessively.

    I live now just like how I did when I was a poor student – with a carefully limited budget and spending within my means (more on experiences than products). I save 80% of my income and plan to retire early. More people can do the same.

    My mentor/hero bought a fixer upper house that she repaired by herself. She bikes to work every day in the snow, and buys her clothes from thrift stores. She makes a six figure salary.

    Save for an uncertain future, folks, and you won't find yourself in dire straits later on in life.

    – Rick Zhang @ Millennial Lifehacker

    Moneta , March 9, 2017 at 7:52 pm

    If everyone saved like you did, the economy would be smaller so there would be even more unemployment and no money for savings

    Rick Zhang , March 9, 2017 at 8:26 pm

    Tragedy of the commons, eh?

    If everyone saved more, we'd reach a happier and more balanced equilibrium. Plus, money that's saved is recycled into the economy through lending.

    Or maybe you're arguing that the poor should save more and the wealthy should consume more and keep the economy humming.

    – Rick Zhang @ Millennial Lifehacker

    Jagger , March 9, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected to live long enough to retire.

    I suspect your children or your extended family, were your retirement if you lived long enough pre-20th century times. Also I cannot imagine there was any sort of defined retirement prior to 20th century for the masses. People simply did whatever they could within their families until they couldn't. Work loads probably just decreased with the fragility of old age.

    Also many people did live long lives. IIRC, heavy mortality was primarily concentrated in children and childbirth and maybe the occasional mass epidemic or bloody war. Dodge those and you could probably live a fairly long life.

    PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    Quite right; there was a bimodal or multimodal curve, which is why mean averages of life expectancy are not all that enlightening. But the fact is that most people who worked or fought, worked or fought their whole lives, until they were incapacitated; then there was their family, or the Church, or the poorhouse, or starvation, usually leading to mortal illness, if it had not done so before then.

    The other side of that story is that the old folk were there as part of the social and economic unit: helping to pick the harvest with the very youngest; sharing skills and knowledge across four or five generations, century after century-rather than being shuffled off to die in some wretched cubby, doing "retirement" things. There's a terrific little book, Peter Laslett's The World We Have Lost, that gives a well-sourced and interesting picture of pre-industrial family life that pushes people to overcome some of their self-satisfaction about this kind of thing.

    watermelonpunch , March 9, 2017 at 5:39 pm

    I remember reading where they found a Neanderthal remains that showed that this guy was definitely disabled to the point where he couldn't have survived alone. Which means someone else helped him live longer.
    That's what humans have always done pretty much, before money. People paid in by being part of society, and then their community helped them later. Social insurance is just the money big civilization version of it isn't it?

    I'm just thinking of the people with aging parents and children with parent cosigned student loans And what if they were responsible for paying the $90,000+ / year nursing home payment and all the medical bills, instead of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid On top of trying to help their kids get through college.

    The whole scenario is a bad joke and getting worse.

    Moneta , March 9, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    There wasn't 15-20% of the population expecting to live 30 years in retirement and the next generations to pay for their still mortgaged McMansions and trips to the tropics.

    I have no issues paying for retirees. I have issues with asking the younger generations to pay for lifestyles that are bigger than theirs. The Western retirement lifestyle is too energy and resource intensive.

    jrs , March 9, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    I don't think most people collecting a social security check actually have a big lifestyle, much less trips to the tropics, that's a Charles Schwab commercial, not a reality for most people. What Social Security has done is mostly reduce the number of old people living in poverty. Ok so young and middle age people are still living in poverty, making everyone live in poverty including people that are old and frail and sick is not an improvement. Are retired people's lifestyles actually shown to be more energy intensive, I think in many ways they would be less so, ie not making that long commute to the office everyday anymore etc..

    polecat , March 9, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    This -- Without adequate resources and, most importantly, energy, there are no pensions -- indeed, there is no middle class as well !!

    Anonymouse , March 9, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    Sorry, but your comment is delusional. It is impossible for someone retired on only Social Security to "pay for their still mortgaged McMansions and trips to the tropics". In what universe is that possible on a MAXIMUM annual income of less than $32,000? Googling "maximum social security benefits" generates the following info:
    "The maximum monthly Social Security benefit payment for a person retiring in 2016 at full retirement age is $2,639. However, the maximum allowable benefit amount is only payable to those who had the maximum taxable earnings for at least 35 working years. Depending on when you retire and how much you made while working, your benefits may be considerably less. The estimated average monthly benefit for "all retired workers" in 2016 is $1,341."

    jrs , March 9, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    I suspect a lot of people (younger than boomers) might be still mortgaged to a small degree when they retire as housing costs have gone up so that people can't afford a mortgage when they are young, so if they buy real estate at all it's at middle age, buy the first home in their 30s or 40s or 50, for a 30 year mortgage. But McMansions have nothing to do with that.

    Moneta , March 9, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    First of all I did specify that a 15-20% group is doing quite well.

    – Debt in retirement is increasing
    http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1012/boomers-staying-in-debt-to-retire-in-comfort.aspx

    -Average/median square footage house 1973 vs. 2010. https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

    -Social Security represents half of retirement income for half of retirees. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/28/how-much-of-my-income-will-social-security-replace.aspx

    -Income distribution (see page 9)
    https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf

    ************

    The income distribution table shows that the younger retirees 65-75 are not suffering when compared to the working population they seem to have a good thing going for them

    Merging all these data points, it becomes quite apparent that there is a large percentage of retirees who still carry debt while collecting social security.

    Increasing social security to some group means making another group pay

    PlutoniumKun , March 9, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    As usual, the abuse of history is the outstanding credibility-buster in this piece. When an author says this,

    Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society.

    why should I believe anything else that he has to say?

    The sole instance given is of Bismarck's Germany, actually ground-breaking in its social welfare policies, which came only in the last part of the 19th century.

    For most of the 19th century, just about everywhere, nobody who worked for a living expected to live long enough to retire.

    Indeed, retirement in past centuries had a different denotation. Its common use was among the aristocracy, when one of that number determined to remove himself from active (urban) social or political life and withdraw (hence the etymology, "re-tirer"), usually to the country.

    Historically, he is right and you are entirely wrong, which is not surprising as Michael Hudson is originally a philologist and historian and has specialised in economic history.

    The modern conception of retirement is mostly a 20th Century invention, but throughout history, there are many versions of 'retirement', and they were almost always paid out of current expenditures. Roman soldiers were paid lump sums and frequently given land on reaching retirement age through the Aerarium Militare. Militaries throughout ancient and medieval history had similar schemes, and not just for officers, but again, these were rarely if ever paid out of a contribution scheme – it was considered an obligation of the State.

    In many, if not most societies, it was accepted that aristocratic employers and governments had obligations to elderly staff – for example, fuedal workers would keep their homes when they were no longer capable of working, and this extended well into the 19th Century. Organised religions would almost always have systems for looking after retired religious members, again, always paid out of current revenues, not some sort of investment fund. The concept of a fixed retirement age (outside of the military) is a relatively modern one, but the concept of 'retirement' is not modern at all.

    PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    This is the worst strawmanning bull**** I have seen in a while; it is simply infuriating. I don't have the time to put all of what follows into perfect order, but here's what I can tap out in a minute or two.

    If, PK, you are trying to prove that some people in the past have stopped work and still gotten paid, as part of their lifetime compensation for the work they have done, and that this is, de facto, compensation during what we would now call "retirement," you win. Straw man knocked over.

    So let me again quote what Hudson says, just so your argument can be demonstrated as the pointless distraction that it is:

    "Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society."

    That couldn't be clearer. "Nobody anticipated," as in "nobody." Meaning it was a generally accepted social value that . what follows. What follows is "people," as in "people"; not just soldiers, or priests, or servants; "people," ie, Gesellschaft; and then, "their own retirement," (which can only imply a period when they were old enough still to do something productive that earned money, but chose not to, instead; because otherwise it would be called "disability," right?). "That was viewed as an obligation of society," meaning, it was a right, not a privilege or gift or compensation, and it was universal, because it applied to "people," and "nobody" thought otherwise.

    There is just nothing there that is justifiable in any way based on the history of the nineteenth century. The only exception is Bismarck's Germany, which is adduced as proof of the statement, which is totally insupportable on its face.

    If you stand by that, and are trying to suggest that "retirees," meaning as a group everyone in society beyond a pre-defined age, as opposed to the disabled, were ever perceived as having a societally based right to welfare support before the very late nineteenth or early twentieth century, and that only in a very few, very advanced places, you fail three times over.

    You do this in classically ahistorical ways: you conflate Gesellschaft with Gemeinschaft; you adduce the military of the ancient world, which is just hilariously anachronistic, but even those prove you wrong when examined closely; you completely misconstrue the rules of the corporately organized ancien regime, which by the way was ancient history as far as the post-Dickensian industrializing Europe that Hudson speaks of; you adduce the military and the priesthood as if they were representatives of "society" as a whole, which they were not–they were adherents of the body that made the rules, and liked to keeps its friends close, and could reward them. The same, while you are at it, was true of some different varieties of public servants–but not many, and again, not before the late nineteenth century, and certainly not in the US:

    "Like military pensions, pensions for loyal civil servants date back centuries. Prior to the nineteenth century, however, these pensions were typically handed out on a case-by-case basis; except for the military, there were few if any retirement plans or systems with well-defined rules for qualification, contributions, funding, and so forth. Most European countries maintained some type of formal pension system for their public sector workers by the late nineteenth century. Although a few U.S. municipalities offered plans prior to 1900, most public sector workers were not offered pensions until the first decades of the twentieth century. Teachers, firefighters, and police officers were typically the first non-military workers to receive a retirement plan as part of their compensation."

    https://eh.net/encyclopedia/public-sector-pensions-in-the-united-states/

    Your ad hominem appeal to Hudson's authority as a historian is amusing: it is actually not surprising that Hudson is wrong, and I am right; because he is an economic historian, with a special faculty, apparently, for conducting contemporary policy polemics; and I would be happy to give you my professional authority, except that this is the internet, so appeals to professional authority don't mean anything at all, but I'll just put it to you that it is more than sufficient; but leaving that aside, I am without a polemical agenda, except just this one: that the past needs to be respected in its totality, and that even when being used to score points in contemporary policy arguments. I know which of us has more credibility here just by reading Hudson's sentences, which are devoid of historical meaning or sensitivity; and I know that I, as a historian, would never knowingly misuse the past to make a point about the present, because that is being a bad, bad doctor.

    You bring up three cases: military, clergy, and servants. Those are exactly not what Hudson is talking about when he mentions Bismarck, or the nineteenth century, or retirement and its old age provisions as a whole, so you basically proved my point just by failing to address the actual argument. What Hudson is referring to-because he says so with his one example-is the Bismarckian "Gesellschaft" obligation to what had in previous centuries been called the the third estate in generic terms. Not, mind you, the first and second estates and their servants and adherents. If Hudson were talking about pensions for the military, he would have said so, and his argument would have ended there, in a paragraph, because they are fully protected in that regard and have been, at least more than the average citizen, since the GI Bill. Pensions for the military is not part of some kind of "social obligation" for retirees; it is a reward for long service, and therefore not some kind of "right of social welfare," but a kind of compensation, and it was not much, at that, in the 19th century.

    The regular clergy, which made up most of the clergy until the dissolutions, did not retire: their jobs were for life, because they lived a life of prayer, and that was not something that ever ended. The Church supported all clergy as a corporate, spiritually mandated obligation, not as a generalized "social obligation" like social security, or what Bismarck instituted. If your point is that certain corporate groups took care of their privileged members when they no longer worked, that is one thing; if your point is that "retirement" as a condition that merited social welfare, in general, the clergy don't make that for you. They were exceptions to the general rule that people had to fend for themselves, a rule that applied to the entire third estate by definition from time immemorial.

    Lastly, servants: those who "retired" in the nineteenth century very often did not have the same treatments as servants in the ancien regime, many of whom died in harness in any case. But, if their employing families did continue to provide for them, they did so not out of a sense they were meeting the "obligation of society to the retired," but as a matter of family or community duty, noblesse oblige. It was completely at the mercy and discretion of the family involved. It was a matter of personal honor, and still is, when servants have been your friends and companions and have prepared and eaten the same food you have, and cleaned your mess and watched your back and brushed your horses and trained you to ride, and seen your youthful foolishness, sometimes for generations. Those are not "obligations of society"; they are personal and family and moral obligations. So Cato the Elder took some heat for his recommendations on discarding old and broken down slaves, but nobody suggested it was up to the Republic to pay for them instead. Since you're going to the ancient world, you might better have used that example than that of the soldiers.

    And so all that is what Hudson is not talking about. He's talking about Bismarck's social security as a moral precedent, reflecting a widely held belief in the popular right to a social safety net after a certain age.

    So of course some people were "pensioned." They were called "pensioners," and many of them were not at all "retired," but had gone on to work at other things, like soldiers who opened up fish-and-chips shops (q.v.). That does not mean that there was ever a Gesellschaft-like concept of "retirement" as a condition that brought the right to support by the commonwealth; not before Bismarck. That's what Hudson's reference tries to imply, that such a concept was common in the 19th century, at a widespread societal level in Western Civilization, and it is provably, demonstrably, obviously wrong. If it weren't, why would the Old-Age Pensions Act 1908 have ever been passed?

    "Nobody anticipated in the 19th century that people would have to pay for their own retirement. That was viewed as an obligation of society."

    You simply cannot construe that to have any truth, given the facts of the century. You can straw-man me about the concept of "retirement" all you like, although you are still wrong there, because the groups you name aren't people who "work for a living," which is the third estate; they are the first and second estates, and their adherents: those who fight for a living, and pray for a living, and those who obey them.

    So the fact remains that Hudson's statement was just polemical fluff, and no historian worth the name should have uttered it. I guess I'll sit here and wait for his response, because yours, well .

    fresno dan , March 9, 2017 at 11:05 am

    "He didn't call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is."

    This just drives me to apoplexy. 1, that it is not called a tax, and 2, that wage taxes are never ever reduced.
    Incessant yammering about "incentives" – but doesn't a wage tax disincentivise both employers and employees with regard to wage work? – – Endless talk about how CEO's can't do ANYTHING unless their taxes are REDUCED!!!!!!! But somehow .that just goes out the window when it comes to wages – TAXES MUST GO UP.
    Cheney – deficits don't matter .except apparently with regard to social security ..

    The other scam about FICA and its "separate" funding is that social security being in balance is OH SO IMPORTANT – deficits will be the death of it. Yet the general fund is in deficit (see Mish today for a bunch of stuff on the hypocrisy of repubs on the deficit) and ever more deficit and nobody seriously cares about it or worries about it. MONEY can always be found for invading for Iraq, and paying for invading anybody is NEVER a problem. Feeding old folks, on the other hand, sure strains the resources
    Its like it is as important to keep a reserve army of the impoverished as it is to keep the empire.

    Dead Dog , March 9, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    FD -'This just drives me to apoplexy' Breathe, buddy.

    Yes, mate, feeding old folks – looking after the oldies so they have health care, decent food and a home.

    How well each country does it reflects their views on whether it's a social obligation. For many countries, there is no safety net and families provide the care, if they can.

    It's becoming that way in the west too. I don't see many governments increasing welfare for our poorest people, benefits are being gutted and those that did save for retirement are seeing their funds looted and zero interest paid

    Hemang , March 9, 2017 at 11:17 am

    Life in Indian joint family is great- no retirement work- food for life for a member- great lack of boredoms and lonely depressions- life, life ,- exquisite vegetarian food fit for Gods- low tech human scale towns- GREAT TO BE ALIVE ON 3 dollars a day! This talk of retirement and working and senior junior savings is so pathetic that my sex drive just evaporated into thin air reading it! Get a life.

    Disturbed Voter , March 9, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Destruction of the family by public and private corporations, with the assistance of disruption by multiple industrial revolutions is key.

    Sluggeaux , March 9, 2017 at 11:25 am

    It's good to read Michael Hudson's call-out of FICA as a mechanism to crush workers and transfer wealth to the already rich.

    FICA is indeed the worse sort of deductive reasoning. It is based on the premise that the rich are entitled to be rich, and that the masses want to take their money from them. In America in particular, wealth has historically been based on grants from the sovereign to loot the commons (timber, agriculture, mineral extraction, railroads, military procurement, data mining, etc.). These grants to loot the commons have nearly always been based on corrupt practices of cronyism and bribery. Alchemists like Greenspan simply provide theo-classical mumbo-jumbo after-the-fact justification for their piracy.

    Ironically, I was just reading about impending failure of the Oroville Dam, a prime example of America as the seat of greed. It was well-known that the spillways were inadequate and crumbling due to 50 years of use. However, the Reagan-ites of Southern California refused to tax themselves in order to save Oroville and Yuba City, 450 miles away.

    It's sad that everyone, especially the rich, think that they can blow-up the United States and then fly to their bolt-hole in New Zealand or Australia - or if you're not so rich to a shack in Panama or Thailand. I suspect that we will soon find ourselves to be unwelcome pariahs in those places.

    Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    And, if you're a freelancer like I am, you get to pay both sides of the FICA tax, employee and employer. Fun, fun!

    Dead Dog , March 9, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    They may be unwelcome by the masses, but money still talks and, if you haven't got any, well you just stay right where you are.

    mk , March 9, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    200,000 people (even if they all voted) is not a political threat to the state and feds.

    Rick Zhang , March 9, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    How is FICA a redistribution to the wealthy? If anything, what you pay in buys you a share of the distributions when you retire. That means the output is roughly proportional to the input you contribute. The wealthy stop contributing after roughly the $120,000 limit, but that doesn't mean they take an outsized distribution. They take home exactly the same (pre-tax) as someone who only made $120,000 per year.

    If anything there's a bit of redistribution behind the scenes that favours the poor. See my earlier post. If you make too many changes to Social Security such that it becomes another welfare program, it will lose its popular backing and eventually get axed.

    – Rick Zhang @ Millennial Lifehacker

    MMT is the Key , March 9, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    Neoliberalism is OUT-DATED. Rather, for the past four decades, it's been fiat currency for the .01% and gold standard straitjacket ideology for everyone else.

    "The mainstream view is no longer valid for countries issuing their own non-convertible currencies and only has meaning for those operating under fixed exchange rate regimes,

    'The two monetary systems are very different. You cannot apply the economics of the gold standard (or USD convertibility) to the modern monetary system. Unfortunately, most commentators and professors and politicians continue to use the old logic when discussing the current policy options. It is a basic fallacy and prevents us from having a sensible discussion about what the government should be doing. All the fear-mongering about the size of the deficit and the size of the borrowings (and the logic of borrowing in the first place) are all based on the old paradigm. They are totally inapplicable to the fiat monetary system' (Mitchell, 2009).

    We might now consider the opportunity afforded by the new monetary reality, effectively modelled by MMT. A new socio-political reality is possible which throws off the shackles of the old. The government can now act as a currency issuer and pursue public purpose. Functional finance is now the order of the day. For most nations, issuing their own fiat currency under floating exchange rates the situation is different to the days of fixed exchange rates. Since the gold window closed a different core reality exists – one which, potentially at least, provides governments with significantly more scope to enact policies which benefit society.

    However, the political layer, in the way it interacts with monetary reality, has a detrimental effect on the power of democratic governments to pursue public purpose. In the new monetary reality political arrangements that sprang up under the old regimes are no longer necessary or beneficial. They can largely be considered as self-imposed constraints on the system; in short the political layer contains elements which are out-of-date, ideologically biased and unnecessary. However, mainstream economists have not grasped this situation – or perhaps they cannot allow themselves to- because of the vice-like grip that their ethics and 'traditional' training has on them.

    MMT provides the best monetary models out there and highlights the existence of additional policy space acquired by sovereign states since Nixon closed the gold window and most nations adopted floating exchange rates. We just need to encourage the use of the space to enhance the living standards of ordinary people."

    Heterodox Views of Money and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) by Phil Armstrong (York College) 2015

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57M6ATPZIE

    PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    Hear, hear!

    A new socio-political reality is possible which throws off the shackles of the old. The government can now act as a currency issuer and pursue public purpose. Functional finance is now the order of the day. For most nations, issuing their own fiat currency under floating exchange rates the situation is different to the days of fixed exchange rates. Since the gold window closed a different core reality exists – one which, potentially at least, provides governments with significantly more scope to enact policies which benefit society.

    What I especially like about your post is that it finally takes the mask off and openly admits what everyone who tries to learn about MMT has realized at once: that for all of its utility in understanding money systems, it is designed and propounded with an agenda: to undermine the mores underlying centuries of private-property-based liberal capitalism. Those mores, which remain more than illusions despite the encroachments of central banks, are the last barrier to prevent state capitalism from becoming completely authoritarian, because as long as "taxation" is, at least theoretically, the limit on state spending and therefore power, then "representation" actually means something, and so representative democracy and property rights, which are the keys to a functioning productive civil society and underlie all human progress for eight hundred years, can survive a bit longer.

    The very real and useful core of MMT, which describes what we see happening since the gold standard fell, and is therefore unimpeachable from a certain objective turn of mind, is Janus-faced. On the one hand, it acknowledges what the Framers knew intuitively when they gave the Federal government the power of issuing money: the sovereign makes the money. On the other, as often used here, and especially in your comment, it is a rationale for a government unrestrained by property rights and representative constraints on its power of expenditure. That will not end well, simply because it will not last long, and it will end in a military despotism or landed aristocracy (if you're lucky). Because it always has, and you are not going to change that, are you?

    Jim , March 9, 2017 at 4:25 pm

    In one of the recently discovered lectures (1940) by Karl Polanyi, in referring to post-war Europe (post 1918) he argued:

    "The alternative was between an integration of society through political power on a democratic basis, or if democracy proved too weak, integration on an authoritarian basis in a totalitarian society, at the price of the sacrifice of democracy."

    It is still the same issue today which PhilM nicely illuminates when he states: "..What I especially like about your post is that it finally takes the mask off and openly admits what everyone who tries to learn about MMT has realized at once: that for all of its utility in understanding money systems, it is designed and propounded with an agenda to undermine the mores underlying centuries of private-property-based liberal capitalism. These mores, which remain more than illusions despite the encroachments of central banks, are the last barrier to prevent state capitalism from becoming completely authoritarian, because as long as "taxation" is, at least theoretically, the limit on state spending and therefore power, then "representation" actually means something "

    The national security state already has a potentially totalitarian hold on us and in the future the MMT scenario "as a rationale for a government unrestrained by property rights and representative constraints on its powers of expenditure" might nicely finish us off.

    It would no longer be the neo-liberal present where the whole of society must be subordinated to the needs of the market system, but the other extreme, where the whole of society must be subordinated to the needs of the state supposedly working in the "public interest."

    PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 5:48 pm

    Thank you for your reply. You said it better than I did, especially with the citation of Polanyi, one of my personal heroes.

    Grebo , March 9, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    it is designed and propounded with an agenda: to undermine the mores underlying centuries of private-property-based liberal capitalism.

    You say that like it's a bad thing :-)

    the last barrier to prevent state capitalism from becoming completely authoritarian

    State capitalism? If this is supposed to be a topical reference I don't get it.

    as long as "taxation" is, at least theoretically, the limit on state spending and therefore power, then "representation" actually means something

    How so? Did "taxation" restrain Bush from spending trillions on invasions? Can't you have representation without taxation?

    representative democracy and property rights, which are the keys to a functioning productive civil society and underlie all human progress for eight hundred years

    I thought that was the Catholic Church
    "Property rights"-the private monopolisation of the gifts of nature-at least in their traditional form, seem to me to be the third fundamental flaw in our political economy, along with Capitalism (narrowly defined) and our bogus monetary ludibrium. We need a new Church.

    Allegorio , March 9, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    MMT: great stuff. With you 100%. The issue is corruption and this culture of privilege and corruption we live in. You better believe the government will be issuing currency for other than the public interest. The fact is we live in an MMT economy now, it's just that the currency created by the government is being passed out to the ethnically privileged .001%. The talk of deficits and national debt is all a smoke screen to cover up this fact. It is way past time to educate the masses on this theme, kudos to Michael Hudson & Steve Keen.

    Katy , March 9, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    J is for Junk Economics: Amazon's "#1 New Release in Business & Professional Humor." Facepalm.

    Sluggeaux , March 9, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    OMFG, you're not making this up!

    Bezos really is a contraction of Beelzebub

    Disturbed Voter , March 9, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    One part of society parasitical on the productive part .. starts small. $1 per $1000, then $10 per $1000 until it gets to $1000 per $1000. Neither bought politicians, nor bought citizens, stays bought.

    Of course we shouldn't expect women and children to work that is destructive of reproduction and child raising. Some women should work some children should work but only a few. Otherwise obvious system dynamics will reduce the net population in quality and quantity.

    djrichard , March 9, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    You're going to privatize the roads, so that now you're going to have to pay to use the road to drive to work, if you don't have public transportation.

    This is a zero-sum game for the elite. They're already soaking us. If they soak us on tolls, they'll have to take less money soaking us another way.

    In contrast, Fed Gov reducing spending is not a zero-sum game for the elite. That means less money to be soaked up from the public. Unless of course, the public compensates by taking out more private debt. In which case, ka ching for the elite again.

    That said, I don't think the mind-set really is to reduce Fed Gov spending. Rather, the mind-set is to reduce entitlements so that other Fed Gov spending can be increased, namely on defense, intelligence communities, etc. And I really don't think the elite have much of a dog in that fight. After all, the elite suck up all the money regardless of how it's spent by the Fed Gov. So my guess is that this campaign to reduce entitlement spending is being waged by the other agencies in the Fed Gov and the eco-system that feeds off them.

    susan the other , March 9, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    In the 1980s Greenspan pushed for massive increases in FICA. And Reagan spent it on Star Wars. Recently I've read that that wasn't really a missile shield project but a cyber technology project. Today we read that the CIA has disseminated all this accumulated and obsolete technology; leased it out to private contractors; or variously bribed the Europeans with it. Etc. Fast-back to the 1930s and FDR took the same SS money for WW2. In the 60s, JFK agonized about the budget and the value of the dollar and could see no reason to go into Vietnam, but oops. LBJ bulldozed through Congress our Medicare plan, which upped SS contributions, and he went promptly into Vietnam, spending it all and stuffing the retirement funds with treasuries. Shouldn't we all be looking at how transitory these achievements (or disasters) have been. Maybe nothing more than boosting the economy for a few years every other decade or so. Money could achieve much more than this if we accepted as fact the fleeting benefits of misspending it and instead concentrated on a steady economy benefiting all. Hubris rules, but it doesn't ever make things better.

    Jim Haygood , March 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    'it's a myth that Social Security should be pre-funded by its beneficiaries' - Sharmini Peries

    If it's a myth, it's one that's incorporated in the Social Security Act of 1935, as well as (for private pensions) the ERISA Act of 1974.

    After about a century of experimentation, we know how to fund pensions securely: estimate the present value of the future liability using an appropriate discount rate, and then keep it funded on a current basis.

    Social Security grossly violates this model in three respects. First, it is only about 20 percent funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its own trustees.

    Second, because Social Security does not avail itself of the Capital Asset Pricing Model developed in the 1960s, it invests in low-return Treasuries, which causes required contributions to be cruelly high. Had Soc Sec been invested in a 60/40 mix of stocks and bonds, FICA taxes could have been half their current level and funded higher benefits.

    Third and finally, Social Security is treated as an off balance sheet obligation in the Financial Report of the United States. Unlike the legally enforceable obligation of private pension sponsors to make good on their promises, the government refuses to take responsibility and put itself on the hook. The Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security essentially is a welfare program, which Congress can cut back or cancel at will. So much for "security" - there isn't any.

    Social Security is part of a general pattern of government taking a sleazy, second-rate approach to its social promises, by exempting itself from well-established prudential rules mandating best practices. Frank Roosevelt wanted his constituents to be forever dependent on the kindness of perfidious politicians. He got his wish.

    a different chris , March 9, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    >we know how to fund pensions securely: estimate the

    C'mon Jim you can do better than that. Here is dictionary.com, do you see the problem with your statement?

    know:
    verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
    1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty:

    estimate
    verb (used with object), estimated, estimating.
    1.to form an approximate judgment or opinion regarding the worth, amount, size, weight, etc., of; calculate approximately:

    ajea , March 9, 2017 at 8:15 pm

    If it's a myth, it's one that's incorporated in the Social Security Act of 1935, as well as (for private pensions) the ERISA Act of 1974.

    You're incorrect.

    Read Luther Gulick's memo to FDR. Read to the end:
    https://www.ssa.gov/history/Gulick.html

    Jim A , March 9, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    When you lend money to the profligate, they are happy. When you ask to be repaid, they are furious. It turns out that is just as true when workers who payroll taxes on their whole income "lend money" to the wealthy by paying excess amounts to the SS trust fund which in turn, enabled tax cuts for the wealthy. The wealthy are incensed that the SS trust fund, which has "lent" trillions to the treasury is now demanding to be "repaid" with interest.

    Tim , March 9, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    That's the trick about S.S. that gets me. You cannot pay in 15% of your income with some amount of reasonable compounding interest for your entire career and not have a massive nest egg at the end. But the math is done straight up such that there never was interest on the payments, so we are entitled to very little, despite every other form of investing on the planet returning some kind of interest.

    It's one of the reasons I argue for a Sovereign Wealth Fund to retain and manage all SS recepts, so at least the contributions and return on investment are accounted for in plain sight, so nobody can bait and switch.

    And heaven forbid the Sovereign wealth fund could also be used as government bank that loans (our) money direct to citizens, without private banks getting a cut.

    It ain't utopia, but it is a way of playing their game and still winning results and the pr war even in the face of the most anti-sociailst conservative.

    Tim , March 9, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    We need to keep up with the Feudalism 2.0 Moniker.

    We continue to refine society towards only 4 classes of people:
    Warlords/Politicians
    Productivity Owners
    Rent Extractors
    The Oppressed

    Over the last 35 years the productivity owners have been making a run, vacuuming up all the productivity improvements leaving everybody else stagnant, before considering inflation, but with the robotic age coming, they are just getting warmed up.

    a different chris , March 9, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    >but with the robotic age coming, they are just getting warmed up.

    Hmmm.

    Henry Ford II: Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?
    Walter Reuther: Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?

    Apparently not an actual quote, but one Reuther certainly endorsed.

    You know "they" are just planning to kill 2/3 of us off, don't you? The elite are evil and sure many of them are stupid, but far from all of them.

    ChrisAtRU , March 9, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    "You're turning the economy into what used to be called feudalism. Except that we don't have outright serfdom, because people can live wherever they want. But they all have to pay to this new hereditary 'financial/real estate/public enterprise' class that is transforming the economy."

    Spot.On.

    From Marx's "Capital", Chapter 26 (The Secret of Primitive Accumulation):

    "The industrial capitalists, these new potentates, had on their part not only to displace the guild masters of handicrafts, but also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of wealth. In this respect, their conquest of social power appears as the fruit of a victorious struggle both against feudal lordship and its revolting prerogatives, and against the guilds and the fetters they laid on the free development of production and the free exploitation of man by man. The chevaliers d'industrie, however, only succeeded in supplanting the chevaliers of the sword by making use of events of which they themselves were wholly innocent. They have risen by means as vile as those by which the Roman freedman once on a time made himself the master of his patronus.

    The starting point of the development that gave rise to the wage labourer as well as to the capitalist, was the servitude of the labourer. The advance consisted in a change of form of this servitude, in the transformation of feudal exploitation into capitalist exploitation. "

    [Mar 06, 2017] The shadow of JFK assassination: is the US Intelligence community trying to depose Trump ?

    Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution" against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
    "... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
    "... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
    "... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
    "... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
    "... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
    "... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
    "... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
    "... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
    "... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
    "... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
    "... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
    "... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
    "... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
    "... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
    "... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 10:12 PM , 2017 at 10:12 PM
    Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.

    The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.

    Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.

    Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the divide between the intelligence community and Trump.

    "Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.

    Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_ZfKmcnSk

    Defiant Christian Infidels

    Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist alliance. Deus Vult!

    Mike V

    In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know about this from WikiLeaks.

    How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.

    Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.

    Gg Mo

    See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.

    IT WIZARD

    Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community

    Joe

    The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
    sequorroxx

    Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power.

    Trisha Holmeide

    Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.

    ilsm -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 04:12 AM
    Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 04:09 AM
    if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance

    faux media is a tool of 'leftie' oppressors who are okay!

    'leftie' oppressors want to force Christian bakers to make cakes

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:06 AM
    In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm

    Washington Post - October 6, 1999

    ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.

    Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added:

    "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"

    Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart. They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/15/trump-is-showing-how-the-deep-state-really-works/
    Foreign Policy - Feb 15

    The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention, has been the how.

    The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.

    We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.

    Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.

    But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.

    The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.

    But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules

    At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence.

    For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.

    In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.

    The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.

    (Justice Department warned White House that
    Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
    officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)

    But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself. But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy way of saying "unredacted."

    The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under Title III of the U.S. code.

    It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which, during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.

    Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was President.

    At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.

    For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.

    But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn untruth.)

    Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did not match what Flynn insisted he said.

    McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not. But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for weeks.

    Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals. The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
    Obama's executive order and an act make it okay to attempt a coup trashing the 4 th amendment.

    The US confirms to the world it is not what it claims.

    [Feb 25, 2017] The Conflictual Relationship Between Donald Trump And The US Deep State

    No real conflict emerged. The President proved to be a puppet of the Deep State.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
    "... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
    "... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
    "... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
    "... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
    "... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    ... ... ...

    The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old one. Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence. The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.

    The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation. It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives, something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.

    Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.

    Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy, using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense, the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign- policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.

    Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives, setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.

    The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.

    This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:

    "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?"

    What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".

    In an article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations. In a passage I wrote:

    "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.

    In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra front".

    The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya".

    During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside. The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.

    Conclusions and future questions

    There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences, bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.

    The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay the price.

    Mustafa Kemal , Feb 21, 2017 11:21 PM

    " What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."

    This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not find the gumption to continue reading.

    Who could write something like that?

    BarnacleBill , Feb 21, 2017 11:29 PM

    The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of view.

    *** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll back the spectre of "1984".

    [Feb 25, 2017] The main challenges in this new era is to reduce the level of inequality from neoliberal level to New Deal levels

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democrats' central weakness comes from being a party of business but having to pretend otherwise. ..."
    "... Since Donald Trump was inaugurated as the president of the United States, things have been moving so quickly it's hard to pause and take stock of our surroundings - let alone evaluate how we arrived at this nightmarish place. ..."
    "... 'Ironically, both Stiglitz and Sanders have declared themselves to be democrats" ..."
    "... I was a Democrat before and would be again. But, that would require that the neocons and neoliberals would be replaced by progressives. ..."
    "... Shumer was elected Senate minority leader and that is a bad sign to me. He is sponsored by both neocons and neoliberals. ..."
    "... Joe wants to be allowed to speak his piece. If he irritates the plutocrats too much they will cut off his access to media. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : February 21, 2017 at 07:31 AM

    Re: Joe Stiglitz:

    Joe says: "One of the main challenges in this new era will be to remain vigilant and, whenever and wherever necessary, to resist."

    I disagree. I think we need a clearly articulated alternative to Trump and I think Joe provided one in his recent comment:

    Joseph Stiglitz Says Standard Economics Is Wrong. Inequality and Unearned Income Kills the Economy

    The rules of the game can be changed to reverse inequality

    http://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/

    In that comment Joe says:

    Reversing inequality

    A wide range of policies can help reduce inequality.

    Policies should be aimed at reducing inequalities both in market income and in the post-tax and-transfer incomes. The rules of the game play a large role in determining market distribution- in preventing discrimination, in creating bargaining rights for workers, in curbing monopolies and the powers of CEOs to exploit firms' other stakeholders and the financial sector to exploit the rest of society. These rules were largely rewritten during the past thirty years in ways which led to more inequality and poorer overall economic performance. Now they must be rewritten once again, to reduce inequality and strengthen the economy, for instance, by discouraging the short-termism that has become rampant in the financial and corporate sector.

    Reforms include more support for education, including pre-school; increasing the minimum wage; strengthening earned-income tax credits; strengthening the voice of workers in the workplace, including through unions; and more effective enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. But there are four areas in particular that could make inroads in the high level of inequality which now exists.

    First, executive compensation (especially in the US) has become excessive, and it is hard to justify the design of executive compensation schemes based on stock options.

    Executives should not be rewarded for improvements in a firm's stock market performance in which they play no part. If the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, and that leads to an increase in stock market prices, CEOs should not get a bonus as a result. If oil prices fall, and so profits of airlines and the value of airline stocks increase, airline CEOs should not get a bonus. There is an easy way of taking account of these gains (or losses) which are not attributable to the efforts of executives: basing performance pay on the relative performance of firms in comparable circumstances. The design of good compensation schemes that do this has been well understood for more than a third of a century, and yet executives in major corporations have almost studiously resisted these insights. They have focused more on taking advantages of deficiencies in corporate governance and the lack of understanding of these issues by many shareholders to try to enhance their earnings- getting high pay when share prices increase, and also when share prices fall. In the long run, as we have seen, economic performance itself is hurt.

    Second, macroeconomic policies are needed that maintain economic stability and full employment. High unemployment most severely penalises those at the bottom and the middle of the income distribution. Today, workers are suffering thrice over: from high unemployment, weak wages and cutbacks in public services, as government revenues are less than they would be if economies were functioning well.

    As we have argued, high inequality has weakened aggregate demand. Fuelling asset price bubbles through hyper-expansive monetary policy and deregulation is not the only possible response. Higher public investment- in infrastructures, technology and education- would both revive demand and alleviate inequality, and this would boost growth in the long-run and in the short-run. According to a recent empirical study by the IMF, well-designed public infrastructure investment raises output both in the short and long term, especially when the economy is operating below potential. And it doesn't need to increase public debt in terms of GDP: well-implemented infrastructure projects would pay for themselves, as the increase in income (and thus in tax revenues) would more than offset the increase in spending.

    Third, public investment in education is fundamental to address inequality. A key determinant of workers' income is the level and quality of education. If governments ensure equal access to education, then the distribution of wages will reflect the distribution of abilities (including the ability to benefit from education) and the extent to which the education system attempts to compensate for differences in abilities and backgrounds. If, as in the United States, those with rich parents usually have access to better education, then one generation's inequality will be passed on to the next, and in each generation, wage inequality will reflect the income and related inequalities of the last.

    Fourth, these much-needed public investments could be financed through fair and full taxation of capital income. This would further contribute to counteracting the surge in inequality: it can help bring down the net return to capital, so that those capitalists who save much of their income won't see their wealth accumulate at a faster pace than the growth of the overall economy, resulting in growing inequality of wealth. Special provisions providing for favourable taxation of capital gains and dividends not only distort the economy, but, with the vast majority of the benefits going to the very top, increase inequality. At the same time they impose enormous budgetary costs: 2 trillion dollars from 2013 to 2023 in the US, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The elimination of the special provisions for capital gains and dividends, coupled with the taxation of capital gains on the basis of accrual, not just realisations, is the most obvious reform in the tax code that would improve inequality and raise substantial amounts of revenues. There are many others, such as a good system of inheritance and effectively enforced estate taxation.

    Redefining economic performance

    We used to think of there being a trade-off: we could achieve more equality, but only at the expense of overall economic performance. It is now clear that, given the extremes of inequality being reached in many rich countries and the manner in which they have been generated, greater equality and improved economic performance are complements.

    This is especially true if we focus on appropriate measures of growth. If we use the wrong metrics, we will strive for the wrong things. As the international Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress argued, there is a growing global consensus that GDP does not provide a good measure of overall economic performance. What matters is whether growth is sustainable, and whether most citizens see their living standards rising year after year.

    Since the beginning of the new millennium, the US economy, and that of most other advanced countries, has clearly not been performing. In fact, for three decades, real median incomes have essentially stagnated. Indeed, in the case of the US, the problems are even worse and were manifest well before the recession: in the past four decades average wages have stagnated, even though productivity has drastically increased.

    As this essay has emphasised, a key factor underlying the current economic difficulties of rich countries is growing inequality. We need to focus not on what is happening on average- as GDP leads us to do- but on how the economy is performing for the typical citizen, reflected for instance in median disposable income. People care about health, fairness and security, and yet GDP statistics do not reflect their decline. Once these and other aspects of societal well-being are taken into account, recent performance in rich countries looks much worse.

    The economic policies required to change this are not difficult to identify. We need more investment in public goods; better corporate governance, antitrust and anti-discrimination laws; a better regulated financial system; stronger workers' rights; and more progressive tax and transfer policies. By 'rewriting the rules' governing the market economy in these ways, it is possible to achieve greater equality in both the pre- and post-tax and transfer distribution of income, and thereby stronger economic performance.


    [Joe had it right with this essay and progressives should elaborate and emphasize this message - not just rant about Trump.]

    [The whole essay is worth reading, imo.]

    RGC -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    I don't trust the Democratic party.

    I fear that if they did defeat trump, they would go back to the same old policies that have given us this mess.

    I want to see new leadership that commits to new policies like those articulated by Joe Stiglitz and Bernie Sanders.

    I don't want to work for them until I see new policies emerge.

    pgl -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 07:45 AM
    Max Sawicky has a new blog. You might enjoy this description of what his new blog will be about:

    http://thepopulist.buzz/2017/02/16/who-we-are-what-we-do/

    RGC -> pgl... , February 21, 2017 at 08:04 AM
    Thanks for the link.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , February 21, 2017 at 08:15 AM
    CNN is running a debate tomorrow night 10 eastern between Perez and Ellison. Who are you supporting, if anyone?
    libezkova -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 07:56 AM
    "I don't trust the Democratic party."

    That's the key point of the whole discussion. Dems are just a party of neoliberals. Who are in the pocket of Wall Street.

    So they are in the pocket of the same guys who bought Republicans (and both parties are also puppets of MIC -- with Dems becoming the major War party; not that different from neocons ).

    Stiglitz actually is very shy to criticize neoliberal "cult of GDP":
    == quote ==
    As this essay has emphasised, a key factor underlying the current economic difficulties of rich countries is growing inequality. We need to focus not on what is happening on average - as GDP leads us to do- but on how the economy is performing for the typical citizen, reflected for instance in median disposable income.

    People care about health, fairness and security, and yet GDP statistics do not reflect their decline.

    Once these and other aspects of societal well-being are taken into account, recent performance in rich countries looks much worse.

    == end of quote ==

    This is why "pro growth liberals" are just crooks in disguise... With a smoke screen of mathematical nonsense and obscure terminology to cover their tracks.

    RGC -> libezkova... , February 21, 2017 at 08:12 AM
    "This is why "pro growth liberals" are just crooks in disguise... With a smoke screen of mathematical nonsense and obscure terminology to cover their tracks."

    Agreed. They originated with John Bates Clark and the neoclassical concept of marginal utility:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bates_Clark

    kurt -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 11:56 AM
    So you don't think Marginal Utility is a thing? And that it would be good to ignore this thing that you believe doesn't exist? Wow.
    RGC -> kurt... , February 21, 2017 at 12:11 PM
    I think it is a concept that was used by Clark and other neoclassicals to counter Henry George's arguments for a tax on rentiers and then later to obfuscate the role played by finance:

    Henry George and john Bates Clark

    Henry George was the most popular economist of his day. Why did "elite" economists choose to follow the lead of John Bates Clark instead of George?
    IOW, elite economists had various theories to choose from. Why did they choose a theory that neglcted unearned income?
    .........................................................
    "RA: So let me suggest that there is an alternative, and get your thoughts on this, because this idea has run its course. People are now starting to wake up and say" enough." You've written a lot about unearned versus earned wealth – unearned wealth or unearned increment, if you like – and it goes back to a man called John Bates Clark. He was one of the first neoclassical economists. I think I'm right in saying that. Just talk a bit about him, he said there was no differentiation, is that right?
    MH: Yes.
    RA: And that seemingly innocuous proclamation has had huge effects.

    MH: By the 1870s and '80s there was a lot of pressure in all countries, especially in the United States, by socialists on the one hand and followers of the journalist Henry George on the other. George wanted to tax away the land's economic rent and use that as the tax base, instead of taxing labor and industry. So John Bates Clark wrote about the philosophy of wealth, and said "There's no such thing as unearned income. Everything that the economists before me have written is wrong. Everybody earns exactly what they contribute to national product and that means that whatever their earnings are will be added to national product.""

    http://michael-hudson.com/2016/12/innocuous-proclaimations/
    ..........................................................
    Henry George (September 2, 1839 – October 29, 1897) was an American political economist, journalist, and philosopher. His immensely popular writing is credited with sparking several reform movements of the Progressive Era, and inspiring the broad economic philosophy known as Georgism, based on the belief that people should own the value they produce themselves, but that the economic value derived from land (including natural resources) should belong equally to all members of society.
    His most famous work, Progress and Poverty (1879), sold millions of copies worldwide, probably more than any other American book before that time. The treatise investigates the paradox of increasing inequality and poverty amid economic and technological progress, the cyclic nature of industrialized economies, and the use of rent capture such as land value tax and other anti-monopoly reforms as a remedy for these and other social problems.
    ............................................
    Furthermore, on a visit to New York City, he was struck by the apparent paradox that the poor in that long-established city were much worse off than the poor in less developed California. These observations supplied the theme and title for his 1879 book Progress and Poverty, which was a great success, selling over 3 million copies. In it George made the argument that a sizeable portion of the wealth created by social and technological advances in a free market economy is possessed by land owners and monopolists via economic rents, and that this concentration of unearned wealth is the main cause of poverty. George considered it a great injustice that private profit was being earned from restricting access to natural resources while productive activity was burdened with heavy taxes, and indicated that such a system was equivalent to slavery – a concept somewhat similar to wage slavery. This is also the work in which he made the case for a land value tax in which governments would tax the value of the land itself, thus preventing private interests from profiting upon its mere possession, but allowing the value of all improvements made to that land to remain with investors.[27][28]
    ................................
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
    ..................................................
    John Bates Clark (January 26, 1847 – March 21, 1938) was an American neoclassical economist. He was one of the pioneers of the marginalist revolution and opponent to the Institutionalist school of economics, and spent most of his career as professor at Columbia University.
    ............................................................
    The foundation of Clark's further work was competition: "If nothing suppresses competition, progress will continue forever".[8] Clark: "The science adapted is economic Darwinism. Though the process was savage, the outlook which it afforded was not wholly evil. The survival of crude strength was, in the long run, desirable".[9] This was the fundament to develop the theory which made him famous: Given competition and homogeneous factors of production labor and capital, the repartition of the social product will be according to the productivity of the last physical input of units of labor and capital.

    This theorem is a cornerstone of neoclassical micro-economics.
    Clark stated it in 1891[10] and more elaborated 1899 in The Distribution of Wealth.[11] The same theorem was formulated later independently by John Atkinson Hobson (1891) and Philip Wicksteed (1894).

    The political message of this theorem is: "[W]hat a social class gets is, under natural law, what it contributes to the general output of industry."[12]

    ......................................
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bates_Clark
    ............................
    The John Bates Clark Medal is awarded by the American Economic Association to "that American economist under the age of forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge".[1] According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, it "is widely regarded as one of the field's most prestigious awards, perhaps second only to the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences."[2] The award was made biennially until 2007, but is being awarded every year from 2009 because many deserving went unawarded.[3] The committee cited economists such as Edward Glaeser and John A. List in campaigning that the award should be annual. Named after the American economist John Bates Clark (1847–1938), it is considered one of the two most prestigious awards in the field of economics, along with the Nobel Prize.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bates_Clark_Medal
    .....................................................

    RGC -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 12:23 PM
    Furthermore;

    Cambridge capital controversy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_capital_controversy

    "It is important, for the record, to recognize that key participants in the debate openly admitted their mistakes. Samuelson's seventh edition of Economics was purged of errors. Levhari and Samuelson published a paper which began, 'We wish to make it clear for the record that the nonreswitching theorem associated with us is definitely false. We are grateful to Dr. Pasinetti...' (Levhari and Samuelson 1966). Leland Yeager and I jointly published a note acknowledging his earlier error and attempting to resolve the conflict between our theoretical perspectives. (Burmeister and Yeager, 1978).

    However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, 'declared victory': Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss 'capital' as if it were a well-defined concept - which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the 'rational expectations revolution' and in virtually all econometric work." (Burmeister 2000)

    RGC -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 12:29 PM
    Wow.
    yuan -> libezkova... , February 21, 2017 at 12:17 PM

    Too uninformed and angry to realize that Stiglitz has focused on inequality and criticized the use of GDP to measure societal economic activity.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/economics-economic-growth-and-recession-global-economy

    I also strongly recommend Stiglitz's book:

    http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16685439-the-price-of-inequality

    Jesse -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 07:58 AM

    Well stated, and that is what it would take to achieve 'party unity.'

    In other words, put the people and principles first, and then the health and growth of the party will fall into place.

    Party first is power first. And that allure for money and power is what wrecked the Democratic party as it had been-- although that failure was a long time coming.

    Peter K. -> Jesse... , February 21, 2017 at 09:51 AM
    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/trump-election-hillary-clinton-racism-democratic-party/

    Good interview with Doug Henwood:

    The Confusion Candidate

    The Democrats' central weakness comes from being a party of business but having to pretend otherwise.

    by Katie Halper & Doug Henwood

    Since Donald Trump was inaugurated as the president of the United States, things have been moving so quickly it's hard to pause and take stock of our surroundings - let alone evaluate how we arrived at this nightmarish place.

    And the liberal commentariat hasn't helped, arguing that the autopsies on Hillary Clinton's failed campaign do nothing but sabotage the "unity" needed to fight Trump. But if we don't want round two against the Right to resemble round one, we need to know what went wrong and how to fix it.

    ..."

    yuan -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 12:23 PM
    "I don't trust the Democratic party."

    Ironically, both Stiglitz and Sanders have declared themselves to be democrats:

    I don't trust Sanders or Stiglitz but am somewhat encouraged that both have shown modest support for anti-capitalist reforms.

    RGC -> yuan... , February 21, 2017 at 12:51 PM
    'Ironically, both Stiglitz and Sanders have declared themselves to be democrats"

    I was a Democrat before and would be again. But, that would require that the neocons and neoliberals would be replaced by progressives.

    RGC -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 01:08 PM
    Shumer was elected Senate minority leader and that is a bad sign to me. He is sponsored by both neocons and neoliberals.

    I want to see if Ellison is elected chair of the DNC.

    Peter K. -> yuan... , February 21, 2017 at 01:36 PM
    "I don't trust Sanders or Stiglitz but am somewhat encouraged that both have shown modest support for anti-capitalist reforms."

    You're a lunatic troll. No wonder PGL likes you.

    Peter K. -> RGC... , February 21, 2017 at 08:16 AM
    why didn't "Joe" back Bernie Sanders?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    RGC -> Peter K.... , February 21, 2017 at 09:14 AM
    Joe wants to be allowed to speak his piece. If he irritates the plutocrats too much they will cut off his access to media.

    He is a bit too timid for my taste.

    [Feb 21, 2017] The Term "Deep State" in Focus: Usage Examples, Definition, and Phrasebook

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
    "... The Atlantic ..."
    "... derin devlet ..."
    "... Glenn Greenwald, Democracy Now! ..."
    "... Peggy Noonan, Patriot Post ..."
    "... Breitbart ..."
    "... Jefferson Morley, Alternet ..."
    "... Greg Grandin, The Nation ..."
    "... Benjamin Wallace, The New Yorker ..."
    "... Counterpunch ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... Marc Ambinder, NPR ..."
    "... Marc Ambinder, Foreign Policy ..."
    "... "Deep State Blooper" ..."
    "... "Deep State Operation" ..."
    "... "Deep State Actor" ..."
    "... "Deep State Faction" ..."
    "... That's ..."
    "... Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq ..."
    "... Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich ..."
    "... within the territory of the State ..."
    "... Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics ..."
    "... "permanent government" ..."
    "... "permanent government", ..."
    "... "permanent government", ..."
    "... "conducting killings" ..."
    "... The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on February 20, 2017 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    Since today is President's Day, there will be no Water Cooler. Which is a good thing, because this puppy took forever to write. –lambert

    * * *

    "It's called the ruling class because it rules." –Arthur Silber

    Readers know that I've been more than dubious about that incredibly virulent earworm of a term, "deep state" ( December 1, 2014 ). However, in the last week or so, "deep state" is all over mainstream discourse like kudzu, and so it's time to look at it again. As we shall see, it's no more well-defined than before, but I'm hoping that if we aggregate a number of usage examples, we'll come up with a useful set of properties, and a definition. Following the aggregation, I'll propose a number of phrases that I hope can attenuate deep state 's virulence, and render it a sharper and more subtle analytical tool in posts and comments.

    While the usage of "deep state" exploded last week after General Flynn's defenestration by Trump, it seems likely to me that the term had been spreading in the recent past before that, given that a series of politically motivated leaks by the "intelligence community" (IC) from summer 2016 onwards could colorably be attributed to such an entity. The examples are in no particular order; I haven't had the time to find a "patient zero."

    Usage Examples of "Deep State"

    1. The Atlantic . Since "deep state" as a term originated in Turkey ( derin devlet ), I'll start with a Turkish analyst:

    There Is No American 'Deep State'

    Zeynep Tufekci, a Turkish sociologist and writer at the University of North Carolina, tweeted a string of criticisms about the analogy Friday morning. " Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral institutions diverging with the electoral branch [is] not that uncommon even in liberal democracies," she wrote. "In the Turkey case, that's not what it means. There was a shadowy, cross-institution occasionally *armed* network conducting killings, etc. So, if people are going to call non electoral institutions stepping up leaking stuff, fine. But it is not 'deep state' like in Turkey."

    Comment: One danger I always face is projecting American politics onto other countries. Tufekci warns us the opposite is a bad idea too!

    Properties: Permanent bureaucracy and/or non-electoral institutions; "shadowy," cross-institutional. We cross out "conducting killings" for the American context (or do we?).

    2. Glenn Greenwald, Democracy Now! . Greenwald thinks the term is sloppy too (though "scientific" is a high bar):

    The deep state, although there's no precise or scientific definition , generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions . They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret , in the dark, and so they're barely subject to democratic accountability, if they're subject to it at all. It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from-in fact, in opposition to-the political officials to whom they're supposed to be subordinate.

    Comment: Later in the show, Greenwald says that the deep state is "almost engag[ing] in like a soft coup." Here's the Kristol tweet to which Greenwald alludes, explicitly applauding that coup with the bracing clarity so foreign to most Democrats:

    I characterized Greenwald's soft coup - and Kristol's - more delicately as "a change in the Constitutional Order" ( "Federalist 68, the Electoral College, and Faithless Electors" ) but the sense is the same.

    Properties: Kristol, not normal, not democratic, not constitutional; Greenwald: permanent power factions, agencies, especially intelligence agencies, which specialize in deception and require secrecy.

    3. Peggy Noonan, Patriot Post :

    Is [the current chaos], as some suggest, "deep state" revenge for the haughty, dismissive way Donald Trump spoke of the U.S. intelligence community during and after the campaign? Is it driven by the antipathy of the permanent government toward Mr. Putin, and a desire to bring down those, like Mr. Trump, who hope for closer relations with Russia?

    It is a terrible thing if suddenly, in America, there is a government within the government that hates the elected government - and that secretly, silently, and with no accountability , acts on it.

    Properties: Government within a government; secret; not accountable.

    4. Breitbart . I don't normally cite to Breitbart, but since they're in the heart of the battle and have a usage example:

    The "deep state" is jargon for the semi-hidden army of bureaucrats, officials, retired officials, legislators, contractors and media people who support and defend established government policies .

    Comment: Interestingly, Breitbart finds it necessary to define the term for its readership, meaning it didn't originate on the right. Even more interestingly, Breitbart - very much unlike the more staid Peggy Noonan - urges, in my view correctly, that actors outside the alphabet agencies need to be considered.

    Properties: Bureaucrats, officials (some retired), legislators, contractors, media. Brietbart doesn't use Janine Werel's term, Flexian - retired officials become talking heads, for example - but the concept is implicit.

    5. Jefferson Morley, Alternet :

    What Is the 'Deep State'-And Why Is It After Trump?

    The Deep State is shorthand for the nexus of secretive intelligence agencies whose leaders and policies are not much affected by changes in the White House or the Congress . While definitions vary, the Deep State includes the CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and components of the State Department, Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, and the armed forces.

    With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the most-perhaps the only-credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball presidency."

    And Roger Stone, a man who knows his memes:

    "This is an effort by the Deep State to destabilize the president," Stone said.

    Comment: Morley, then, agrees with Kristol (the "only check" in Trump).

    Properties: Intelligence agencies; permanent.

    6. Greg Grandin, The Nation . A useful review of the literature:

    What Is the Deep State?

    So at least as long as there has been private property, there has been private plotting, and talk of a "deep state" has been a vernacular way of describing what political scientists like to call "civil society," that is, any venue in which powerful individuals, either alone or collectively, might try to use the state to fulfill their private ambitions, to get richer and obtain more power .

    Much of the writing frames the question as Trump versus the Deep State, but even if we take the "deep state" as a valid concept, surely it's not useful to think of the competing interests it represents as monolithic , as David Martin in an e-mail suggests. Big Oil and Wall Street might want deregulation and an opening to Russia. The euphemistically titled "intelligence community" wants a ramped-up war footing. High-tech wants increased trade. In 1956, C. Wright Mills wrote that "the conception of the power elite and of its unity rests upon the corresponding developments and the coincidence of interests among economic, political, and military organizations." If nothing else, the "Trump v. Deep State" framings show that unity is long gone.

    Comment: Grandin does give an early usage example, but I'm totally unpersuaded by his identification of the "deep state" with "civil society." Rather - as Breitbart, amazingly enough, suggests - the deep state more plausibly includes components of civil society (media, contractors, etc.).

    Properties: Not monolithic; includes (components of) civil society.

    7. Benjamin Wallace, The New Yorker :

    The Deep-State Theory Cuts Both Ways

    This pattern of dissent ["#TheResistance"], and its early successes, has brought about a vogue for the theory of the deep state, usually used in analyzing authoritarian regimes, in which networks of people within the bureaucracy are said to be able to exercise a hidden will of their own

    The federal government employs two million people; its sympathies move in more than one direction. While many federal employees may want to oppose the White House, others (especially border-patrol and immigration agents, whose support Trump often cited on the campaign trail) have already been taking some alarming liberties to advance the President's politics.

    Comment: Wallace urges that some Federal employees in the permanent bureaucracy are, in essence, "working toward the Fuhrer," which is a consequence of the deep state not being monolithic. He attributes the "vogue" for "deep state" to the resistance, but I (and most others cited here) think it's the Flynn firing.

    Properties: Bureaucratic networks; hidden.

    8. Counterpunch

    A Deep State of Mind: America's Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup

    So who or what is the Deep State?

    It's the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It's the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It's the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It's the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It's the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, 'a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.' It's what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as 'a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies': the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees."

    Comment: Seems pretty big to be deep

    Properties: Law enforcement, contractors, agencies, the courts.

    9. New York Times

    As Leaks Multiply, Fears of a 'Deep State' in America

    Though the deep state is sometimes discussed as a shadowy conspiracy, it helps to think of it instead as a political conflict between a nation's leader and its governing institutions.

    That can be deeply destabilizing, leading both sides to wield state powers like the security services or courts against one another, corrupting those institutions in the process.

    In countries like Egypt, Mr. El Amrani said, the line is much clearer.

    There, "the deep state is not official institutions rebelling," he said, but rather "shadowy networks within those institutions, and within business, who are conspiring together and forming parallel state institutions."

    Comment: Weird all around: The President is the President , the Chief Magistrate of the United States. He's not the "nation's leader," like in the title of sone kinda hardback in the "Business" section of your airport bookstore. And quite frankly, the description of the deep state in Egypt ("shadowy network," "parallel state institutions") jibes with a several of the other usage examples I've collected, right here in the United States.

    Properties: I'll use Egypt's! Network, shadowy, businesses forming parallel state institutions.

    10. Marc Ambinder, NPR :

    With Intelligence Leaks, The 'Deep State' Resurfaces

    GARCIA-NAVARRO: So how do you define the deep state?

    AMBINDER: Well, I try to define it simply – maybe the national security and intelligence bureaucracy , the secret-keepers in the United States, people who have security clearances, who have spent 10 to 20 to 30 years working in and around secrets.

    GARCIA-NAVARRO: So when we're hearing about this term this week to do with Michael Flynn, what do we – what are people making that connection with potentially a huge group of people and this particular case?

    AMBINDER: They're essentially alleging that the national security state, this metastate that exists and, again, traffics totally in secret – used its collective power in order to bring down a duly chosen national security adviser because they disagreed with him or they disagreed with his president or they disagreed with his policies. It is a term of derision, a term that suggests people are using their power for ill-begotten ends. And that, if true, sets up a crisis.

    Comment: Ambinder, then, rejects putting a "civil society" construction on "deep state." (He also rejects Greenwald, and Kristol's, "soft coup.")

    Properties: National security and intelligence bureaucracy; long-term.

    11. Marc Ambinder, Foreign Policy . Ambinder gives an example of the deep state in action:

    Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works

    The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.

    Sometime before January 12, the fact that these [Flynn's] conversations [with the Russian ambassador] had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was President.

    Comment: Note the lack of agency in "was disclosed." Had the deep state not been able to use David Ignatius as a cut-out, the scandal would never have occured. Therefore, a media figure, a member of civil society, was essential to the operation of the Deep State, even though Ambinder's definition of the deep state doesn't reflect this.

    Properties: Network; civil society.

    * * *

    So now I'm going to aggregate the properties suggested by these 10 sources, and make some judgements about what to keep and what to throw away. Throwing out Noonan's concept of "a government within a government", I get this. The deep state:

    1. Gains power through (legal) control of state functions of secrecy and deception

    2. Is "permanent"

    3. Is not monolithic

    4. Is composed of "cross-institutional" networks of individuals in both state (agencies, law enforcement) and civil society (media, contractors)

    5. Is not democratic in its operation; and (potentially) is not accountable, not normal, not constitutional.

    (Individuals within the deep state belong to factions that compete and cooperate, often in addition to their "day jobs," rather as in a "matrix management" construct.)

    So, what'd I miss?

    A "Deep State" Phrasebook

    So, here are some phrases to use that reflect the above - very tentative - understanding. What I really want to do - and who know, maybe I'm trying to shovel back the tide here, too - is get away from the notion of "the" deep state. The deep state is not monolithic! Factional conflict within the deep state exists! So, in my view, the definite article is in this case disempowering; it prevents you from, as it were, knowing your enemy. So, if I have to join the chorus of people using the term, I'm going to think carefully about how do it. This list is a step toward doing that. (I'm going to use examples from the run-up to the Iraq War because it's less tendenitious and way less muddled than the Flynn defenestration.)

    1. "Deep State Blooper" . I'm putting this first as an antidote to CT. Quoting Frank Herbert's Dune :

    " [I]t occurred to Kynes that his father and all the other scientists were wrong, that the most persistent principles of the universe were accident and error."

    It's important to put into our thinking right from the start that Deep State actors are not all-powerful, and that Deep State operations are not invariably successful. I mean, can anybody look at the foreign and nationally security outcomes from what these guys are doing and urge that the baseline for performane is very high? I don't think so. Accidents happen all the time, and these guys, for all the power their positions bring them, are accident-prone. (After all, they're not accountable, so they never get accurate feedback, in a typical Banana Republic power dynamic.

    Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State Blooper." ( See here for details; the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)

    2. "Deep State Operation" . I think it's important to view the Deep State (as defined above) as able to act opportunistically; although many Deep State Actors work for agencies, their operations are not bureaucratic in nature.

    Example: "The White House Iraq Group was a Deep State propaganda operation that succeeded tactically but failed strategically" (See here for details ; the WHIG planted stories in the press to foment the Iraq War. They succeeded in that narrow goal, but the war itself was a debacle, and the damage to the credibility of the press as an institution took a hit.)

    3. "Deep State Actor" . An individual can be a member of the Deep State as an official, and then later as media personality or contractor. (It also seems to me that once you have been within the intelligence community, you can never be said to have left it, since how could anyone know you have really left?

    Example: "Leon Panetta is a consummate Deep State Actor." ( Panetta has been OMB Director, CIA Director, White House Chief of Staff, and Secretary of Defense. "[Panetta] regularly obtains fees for speaking engagements, including from the Carlyle Group.[55] He is also a supporter of Booz Allen Hamilton."

    4. "Deep State Faction" . This is a no-brainer:

    Example: "The Neoconservatives are a Deep State Faction."

    Conclusions

    I apologize for the length as I fought my way through the material, and I hope I haven't made any gross errors - especially political science-y ones! And any further additions to the Deep State Phraseology will be very welcome (but watch those definite articles!).

    1 0 27 0 0 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Politics on February 20, 2017 by Lambert Strether . About Lambert Strether

    Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the "ism" that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue - and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me - is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from despair," as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics - even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton's wars created - bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow - currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press - a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let's call such voices "the left." Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.

    View all posts by Lambert Strether → Subscribe to Post Comments 109 comments Carolinian , February 20, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Gee you didn't even mention California's Bohemian Grove meeting where CEOs romp in togas and such.

    And taken literally Deep State would presumably mean a secretive (deep) and more or less permanent ruling apparatus. We may have the latter but it doesn't seem all that secretive since they love to join think tanks and talk about their loony ideas. The term is often used to bolster conspiracy theories about how the CIA killed Kennedy and are secretly running the country. While recent movies like to portray CIA operatives as super human martial arts specialists they are just as likely boobs who make many mistakes but nevertheless don't mind ratting out Trump's phone calls as petty revenge. I'd say it's the not so secretive but still behind the scenes state we have to worry about. Think the CFR or that Kristol guy. In other words if the term means anything it could be the secondary tier of influencers who have the ear of our MSM.

    sgt_doom , February 20, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    Nothing theoretical about elements within the CIA (such as the fired Allen Dulles, and his still-in-the CIA cousin, Tracy Barnes - oopsy, Fake News never told you they were cousins, now did they?) - just requires a bit of reading and cross-referencing with declassified documents from the CIA, State and the FBI.

    Deep State is really the financial-intelligence-complex who believes they are running things - the intel establishment was originally founded by the super-rich and their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.). When JFK was assassinated the Deputy Director of the CIA was Gen. Marshall Carter, recommended to McCone for that position by Nelson Rockefeller. And the fellow in charge of the reorganization of the CIA at the same time was Gen. Schuyler, Nelson Rockefeller's assistant.

    You just have to look a bit . . .

    Direction , February 20, 2017 at 4:34 pm

    Juicy comment! Can you recommend any books or favorite articles?

    James McFadden , February 20, 2017 at 11:42 pm

    Some book recommendations about the deep state:

    C. Wright Mills "The Power Elite" – describes how the indoctrination mechanisms create the deep state (military industrial political complex).

    David Talbot "The Devil's Chessboard" – about the rise of the CIA and Allan Dulles

    Laurence Shoup "Wall Street's Think Tank" – about the Council on Foreign Relations – the deep state's premier think tank

    Michael Parenti "Dirty Truths" – about empire

    John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" – CIA coups and soft coups

    I'm sure other readers can recommend many more on this subject.

    Caveat Emptor , February 21, 2017 at 12:39 am

    The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
    Mike Lofgren

    The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy
    Peter Dale Scott

    WhatsNotToLike , February 21, 2017 at 10:27 am

    James Galbraith, Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

    nonsense factory , February 21, 2017 at 12:55 am

    There are a couple of books by Dan Briody that are very illuminating about how Deep State actors in government interface with corporate agendas:
    The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money (2004)
    The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group (2003)

    I think of the Deep State as the military-industrial-intelligence-Congressional long-term national-security complex that grew up after World War II, there are perhaps four major elements:
    (1) military and intelligence contractors who rely on the massive $600 billion military budget for their profits.
    (2) executive branch bureaucrats who develop the contracts that are delivered to contractors (State/Pentagon/CIA/NSA/NRO/FBI/DOE etc.)
    (3) Congressmembers (long-serving) on appropriations, intelligence, etc. committees who sign off on budget requests.
    (4) Elements of mass media and think tanks who work overtime to promote the interests of the Deep State elements of the above actors.

    It's a kind of self-perpetuating system that's primary agenda is to keep their budget from being cut by a healthy 50% – which is what we'd need to do to rebuild infrastructure, set up high-quality public education, and create a first-world health care system, i.e. to get up to German or Japanese standard-of-living norms.

    Some have also pointed out that there's an element of the judicial branch that can be included in "Deep State" definitions (such as FISA Court); note that judicial review of executive foreign policy decisions is very rare in the American court system.

    It's also factionalized; i.e. there's the nuclear weapons sector (DOE/NNSA and their contractors), the various Pentagon branches and their suppliers, NSA and their contractors, CIA and their contractors, etc. So they compete with each other for a share of the pie, but they all have a shared interest in preventing the overall pie from shrinking.

    jo6pac , February 20, 2017 at 6:44 pm

    Please a little help as Direction ask just to get us started. The dulles bros were truly evil and have trained their puppets well.

    Vatch , February 20, 2017 at 7:18 pm

    he intel establishment was originally founded by the super-rich and their minions (such as Lovett and McCloy, etc.).

    Wow, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy. For about three decades they were at the pinnacle of the United States Establishment. They were like Sejanus during the reign of Tiberius or Marcus Agrippa during the reign of Augustus. Very, very influential behind the scenes.

    DH , February 20, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    Yeah, and they totally missed Davos.

    I always thought the original deep state was the networks of the Knights Templar, Masons, and Illuminati.

    However, I was wrong – according to the definitions above, it is probably Treadstone and Blackbriar.

    Enquiring Mind , February 20, 2017 at 2:23 pm

    Rex Tillerson's dealing with the seventh floor apparatchiks at the State Department is another productive step in calling out the nomenklatura . Russian themes seem so popular these days.

    Cat's paw , February 20, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    Perhaps helpful to know the original provenance of the term it comes from Turkish journalism when one fine evening a sedan was involved in a nasty wreck. Passengers in said sedan included a high ranking military official, a state or federal(?) representative/official, a crime boss, and a beauty queen.

    My understanding: trying to comprehend what such a collection of worthies were doing in the same car led journalists to coin the term deep state. A networked web of power interests/relations across sectors and institutions that operate beyond above below out of sight of normative or visible politics.

    Emma , February 20, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    Here are more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susurluk_scandal

    Charles Tuttle , February 20, 2017 at 2:41 pm

    David Chibo in Unz Review Political Science's "Theory of Everything"
    http://www.unz.com/article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything/

    neo-realist , February 20, 2017 at 9:05 pm

    I checked out that article from a previous post of the link and thought it was a very valuable, terrific and detailed explanation of Deep State theories w/ some fine literature recommendations.

    Grebo , February 20, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    The totality of truths is that the US "elephant" consists of a power elite hierarchy overseeing a corporatocracy, directing a deep state that has gradually subverted the visible government and taken over the "levers of power."

    Complete with tables and diagrams! A must read IMHO.

    oh , February 21, 2017 at 8:51 am

    It's a good recommendation and well worth reading.

    Qufuness , February 20, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    People within the American Deep State are said to have compassed the removal of General Flynn, who was a prominent member of DS organizations himself, so yes, the DS is not a monolith. But are there powerful "permanent" factions with the DS that pursue long-term strategies?

    There is another way of asking this. Much of what is now labelled "DS" grew out of the investment-banker+intelligence nexus in the immediate postwar period, or at least came to the surface around that time. America has made a series of disastrous unforced errors in the past 70 years, Vietnam and Iraq being the most prominent examples. While these errors have been harmful to the American people at large, is there a clique (besides the Military Industrial Complex) that benefits from these "errors," that has far-reaching goals that completely diverge from those of American constitutional democracy?

    Minh , February 20, 2017 at 5:58 pm

    Both Kennedy's and Diem brothers' assasinations and 911 mass murders were deep events to sell and organize war for the Empire part of American democracy. Not mentioning Peter Dale Scott is a minus of the listing of properties. What does the Deep state did ? 911 and JFK so Afghan Iraq and Vietnam wars.

    ex-PFC Chuck , February 20, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    It's my understanding that the investment banking crowd served as the government's intelligence arm on an informal, sub rosa basis well before WW II. Prescott Bush, GHWB's father, was involved in that.

    Mark P , February 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    Lambert, there is a Deep State in the U.S. as distinct from the mere ruling class (and yes, by definition, it has competing factions and power centers at different agencies).

    A clarifying example of that is this guy, Andy Marshall, aka Yoda, who arguably had more effect on the direction of U.S. policy than any U.S. president over the last half-century and was finally removed from heading the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment just before his 95th birthday. That's power.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marshall_(foreign_policy_strategist)#cite_note-5

    Yet most people have never heard of Marshall and he never enriched himself particularly. You won't be able to tell the influence he exerted from his Wiki page either, except perhaps for the mention of Marshall 'proteges' being the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. Furthermore, before Nixon installed him at the Pentagon, in the 1950s and 60s Marshall was at the RAND corporation helping to formulate nuclear strategy.

    Here's an old trove of press material from over the years.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20070309161816/http://portland.indymedia.org:80/en/2004/02/281049.shtml

    Emma , February 20, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    Interesting. And taking into account the comment from Cat's Paw above, I'd suggest to Lambert there are two distinct components to the term 'Deep State'. One element comprises the majority ie. the facilitators who foster the deep state, while the other element consists of the all-important minority ie. the instigators or 'deep state en nom propre' .

    michael hudson , February 20, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    I think the key to the "Deep state" is simply COVERT.
    It is all covert activities that a public relations officer for the neocons and neoconservatives would not acknowledge in their fairy-tale view of the state.

    Mark P. , February 20, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Yes.

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Technical note – for CIA/Pentagon, a *covert* activity is something that is known, but where US influence or the extent of that is supposed to stay hidden – e.g. a coup d'etat. And a *clandestine activity* is something where the entire activity is supposed to stay hidden – e.g. CIA running Heroin and Cocaine, unlicensed human experimentation, or controlling the editorial desk & ownership if the Washington Post. In that sense, the clandestine activity are even deeper, and the set of people in the know, is even smaller.

    Jim Haygood , February 20, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    " barely subject to democratic accountability, if they're subject to it at all " - Glenn Greenwald

    The $50 billion-plus black budget for the IC, covering many clandestine projects and activities, is not even subject to Congressional accountability. It is discussed verbally with the majority and minority leaders, and the ranking members of the intelligence committees.

    Then the other 427 members (or at least a majority of them) are obliged on instructions from their caucus to whoop it through, without a clue (or even a right to ask) what is in it. To paraphrase the great stateswoman Nancy Pelosi, " We have to pass it to avoid finding out what's in it. "

    Secret funding via this procedure is unconstitutional and illegitimate. Yet neither the president, the judiciary, nor anyone in Congress appears able to stop it. The IC is a fourth-stage cancer devouring the guts of the former republic.

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    Secret funding is a huge unknown. Everything from mostly legitimate front companies, to business donations for favors, to drug running. One would think, incorrectly, that the drug running is some kind of big secret the following links show it is not:
    Collection of quotes from DEA agents, John Kerry, etc:
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5878115
    Video with Robert Bonner, ex-head of DEA, on 60 minutes in 1993, just after he stepped down:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx1bL_Gp03g

    Persona au gratin , February 20, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    YES!

    Crazy Horse , February 20, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    50 billion? That is just the cost of coffee and donuts. A week before 911 Rumsfeld acknowledged that 2.3 TRILLION dollars was missing and unaccounted for in the DOD budget.

    " CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.
    "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
    $2.3 trillion - that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.
    "We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

    Conveniently the accounting records that might have made possible an investigation of that little error were located in Building 7 of the WTC and in the exact section of the Pentagon which the skilled Saudi pilots targeted and and then vaporized their airliner leaving only a few token pieces on the lawn.Of course 911 is ancient history that nobody cares about anymore. Apparently we are in need of another accounting cleansing, since the Inspector General reports that an additional 6.5 TRILLLION has gone missing since then.

    http://www.newstarget.com/2016-08-18-how-did-the-pentagon-lose-over-6-5-trillion-in-taxpayer-money.html

    JTMcPhee , February 20, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    What, me worry? those are all MMT dollars, after all plenty more where that came from.

    ex-PFC Chuck , February 20, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    Susan Lindauer, in her memoir of her role as a CIA asset serving as a go-between in the failed negotiations to avert the Iraq War ( Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq ), recounts that in the desperate last few weeks before March 20, 2003, she was paying her considerable expenses out-of-pocket. Her handler was having trouble getting her reimbursement approved, and by the time he did she was making a pest of herself about the fact that the negotiations had been deliberately sabotaged, and had become a pariah. At that point the handler had no difficulty, not to mention compunction, about simply stiffing her and diverting the funds to the McMansion he was building.

    How much of that $50B black budget is similarly diverted?

    Elasmo Branch , February 20, 2017 at 4:28 pm

    "Covert" means the activity is against the law. "Clandestine" means the activity is secret but within the confines of the law. The military undertakes clandestine activity authorized by law, not covert activity. A US soldiers cannot break the law. On the other hand paramilitary activity is often covert.

    For example, a US soldier on a clandestine mission is captured. Since the soldier is acting legally, albeit in secret, he is afforded all of the rights as a prisoner of war if he id's himself as a US soldier in uniform, name, rank, serial number. A CIA agent [likely a contractor and not a gov't employee] is captured on a covert mission, he can be summarily executed, legally, on the spot for a number of reasons: conducting warfare in civilian clothes and not in uniform, espionage, piracy, etc. There is grey area, for instance, if soldiers ingress to an area in civilian clothes [or the enemy's uniform] then put on their own uniforms before conducting an attack, as the SS did in the Ardenne.

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 4:54 pm

    This article: Joseph Berger III. "Covert Action – Title 10, Title 50, and the Chain of Command." Joint Force Quarterly 67 (Q4 2012). http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-67/JFQ-67_32-39_Berger.pdf . is exactly on this topic. I take my definitions from there. The article does note that it takes some doing to resolve the different usages within CIA and DOD.

    DH , February 20, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    Sounds like the Koch Brothers network.

    SerenityNow , February 20, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    It seems to me that the Canadian "poet, academic and diplomat" author Peter Dale Scott should be included in any mention of "Deep State" Activities.

    Here is an excerpt from his well foot-noted book:

    "The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil and the Attack on U.S. Democracy"

    He has many more interesting excerpts and articles on the same site :

    Lambert Strether Post author , February 20, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    I bought, read, and reviewed one of Scott's books; link in the first para .

    NotSoSure , February 20, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Don't forget the final property of Deep State: "No objections to Goldman Sachs". At least in that one they see eye to eye with Trump.

    ebr , February 20, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    No Illuminati ? - but I jest.

    It would be good if we could separate 'what is the deep state' and 'what are the factions of the deep state' and 'who belongs to the deep state' I suspect that Cambridge Analytics & their Facebook scraping could answer the question 'who belongs to the deep state' as they could they easier track a social network of people more loyal to each other than to the US Gov or the POTUS of the day. Asking the 'Deep State' to define itself could be an exercise in futility as members of the 'Deep State' likely mix ideology & the opportunity to make money in ways that blind them to the full implications of their actions.
    Slate magazine today had an article up of a doctor who tried the revolving door and then wrote about it
    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/going_undercover_through_washington_s_revolving_door.html
    If you all need a fun book to read, try Interface by Neal Stephenson (written after Snow Crash and before Cryptonomicon)

    UserFriendly , February 20, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    IMO: Deep State: Anyone who will be in DC regardless of who is president and can still have some degree of power. They are sometimes well known people like Neera Tanden and sometimes they work in the IC. They are the people who no matter how many times they fuck up, destroy lives, lose a campaign, or completely fail at whatever task they are given, they can always count on a nice cushy paycheck and a new gig where they can [Family Blog} it up some more. The entire class of DC insiders who just can't fail down no matter what.

    Carla , February 20, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    A couple more books of interest: "National Security and Double Government" by Michael J Glennon (2014) and "The Deep State" by Mike Lofgren (2016).

    ewmayer , February 20, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    A PDF version of Glennon's book is freely available online at the Harvard National Security Journal website.

    REDPILLED , February 20, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    DEEP STATE READING LIST:

    The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot

    The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the attack on U.S. Democracy by Peter Dale Scott

    The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government by Mike Lofgren

    Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World by Tom Engelhardt and Glenn Greenwald

    Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right by Jane Mayer

    Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

    The New Media Monopoly: A Completely Revised and Updated Edition With Seven New Chapters by Ben H. Bagdikian

    They Rule: The 1% VS. Democracy by Paul Street

    NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe (Contemporary Security Studies) by Daniele Ganser

    An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King (Updated Edition) by William F. Pepper

    The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin

    JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass

    9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed by David Ray Griffin (2011)

    JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by Fletcher L. Prouty (2011)

    The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World by Fletcher L. Prouty (2011)

    Mounting Evidence: Why We Need A New Investigation Into 9/11 by Paul W. Rea (2011)

    The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War by Peter Dale Scott (2013)

    JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State by Laurent Guyenot (2014)

    All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power by Nomi Prins (2014)

    The Orwellian Empire by Gilbert Mercier (2015)

    The Hidden Structure of Violence: Who Benefits from Global Violence and War
    by Marc Pilisuk (2015)

    Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (American Empire Project) by David Vine (2015)

    The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins (2016)

    The End of the Republic and the Delusion of Empire by James Petras (2016)

    Two web sites:

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

    Patriots Question 9/11 – Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    Jim Haygood , February 20, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    Excellent list.

    Don't forget the late, great Chalmers Johnson, who coined the term blowback and left us with guides such as The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.

    Lambert Strether Post author , February 20, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    Chalmers Johnson is great.

    Emma , February 20, 2017 at 6:17 pm

    Another suggestion for your list of additional reading material:
    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Democratic_State_v_Deep_State
    It's a document/paper by Ola Tunander ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ola_Tunander ) who is quite familiar with the topic (see his experience/research of US/UK PSYOPs naval activities in Scandinavian waters ..).

    Ulysses , February 21, 2017 at 9:21 am

    Good book!!

    dbk , February 20, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, thanks for that list, much appreciated.

    As long as we're on the subject, more or less, I have a question about Dark Money (I'm reading Mayer's book these days) and the Deep State: Do they overlap, or are they rivals? Or are their goals sometimes in sync and sometimes at odds with one another?

    Another way of posing this question is this: If we assume that the President is not the preference of the Deep State, are we also to assume he was not the preference of Dark Money?

    I'm having a hard time figuring out who's going after whom these days, and what short- and long-term objectives are being fought out, almost – but not quite – before our eyes.

    Here's a case from a different field, education, which is the one I follow most closely. A blogger has recently identified the "blueprint" for the new Sec of Education to follow, laid out in a planning document by a Dark Money group which is below the radar (well, below my radar, anyway). It's pretty clear that the Sec is their cabinet member, but are there others? Were these appointments made in the form of favors called in? For what, though, if the Pres isn't part of this network?

    The Sec of Education, it emerged in the course of contentious hearings, had contributed to no less than 23 Republican Senators' campaign war chests. What are we to conclude about them?

    Anyway, here's the link to the post (link to the actual document through it – it was removed from the organization's own site, so is no longer available there):
    http://www.eclectablog.com/2017/02/chilling-this-is-why-weve-been-trying-to-warn-the-usa-about-betsy-devos-destroying-the-wall-between-church-state.html

    Josh Stern , February 20, 2017 at 5:12 pm

    Another good book to mention, which plays a different role, is "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner. It covers a lot of CIA dirt – coups, assassinations, defying/lying to Presidents, etc. – but it is different because basically all of it is drawn from the CIA's own files. So it is purely historical and outside of any "conspiracy" controversy. The files are not complete. Richard Helms ordered the most incriminating ones destroyed in a giant purge in the early '70s – this is described in the book too. But what is there and was saved is often pretty dirty.

    Scott Noble's film series is entertaining on free video: http://metanoia-films.org/counter-intelligence/

    Persona au gratin , February 20, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    To add: Family of Secrets : The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, by Russ Baker (2010).

    JCC , February 20, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    Definitely a good list. I've read a few of these books and want to read more on the list. And don't forget any of Sheldon Wolin's recent books and essays. This one is 13 to 14 years old and still appropriate – https://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism/

    He points out the basic structure, I think, in which following the money makes the most sense.

    neo-realist , February 20, 2017 at 9:38 pm

    Pepper's last book on the MLK assassination, The Plot to Kill King: The Truth behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King would also be a worthy addition to the list.

    Excellent discussion about it on this podcast.

    https://kpfa.org/episode/guns-and-butter-june-29-2016/

    ex-PFC Chuck , February 20, 2017 at 9:56 pm

    I second your recommendation of Pepper's book.

    Kim Kaufman , February 20, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    Imo, a must read: Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia by Paul Williams. I think it's newer than most of the books above and connects a lot of dots.

    peter , February 21, 2017 at 6:24 am

    I've always throught that 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky' should be mandatory on high school curriculum as a speed course on intellectual self-defense.

    nobody , February 21, 2017 at 9:42 am

    Another for the list:

    Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich , by Guido Giacomo Preparata

    nobody , February 21, 2017 at 10:24 am

    Three essays by Charles Hollander: "Pynchon's Inferno," "Pynchon's Politics: The Presence of an Absence," and "Pynchon, JFK and the CIA: Magic Eye Views of The Crying of Lot 49."

    PlutoniumKun , February 20, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    I would put it simpler and define a 'Deep State' as a major (i.e. not minority rogue) element within the existing government structures (or quasi-government structures) which is willing to commit serious illegal acts or unauthorised acts of violence within the territory of the State to achieve its aims independent of the legally constituted government. In other words, I'd not define it by its structure or nature, but by what it actually does.

    I'd define it this way to distinguish it from the sort of bureaucratic plotting which takes place within any large institution which finds itself led by someone who doesn't buy into the organisations core consensus. An example I would use would be Operation Gladio . If Operation Gladio had simply operated as designed, as a secretive military operation which government leaders may not have been aware of, then it was not an example of Deep State. But if, as alleged (but never proved), it carried out acts of terrorism and false flag operations with the specific aim of forcing elected governments to do what they didn't want to do, and this was part of a deliberate high level strategy (i.e. not just the act of a rogue element), then it would be an example of the Deep State at work within democratic western governments.

    Put into contemporary terms, if the internal resistance to Trump takes the form of leaks, internal manoeuvres to slow down his agenda, etc., then that is 'normal' bureaucratic operations. If it takes the form of blackmail, false flag terrorist attacks, assassinations, etc., then it is the Deep State in operation.

    Given that we know parts of the US and allied intelligence communities have for decades been involved in highly illegal operations around the world which has included torture, murder, blackmail and high level assassinations, is it really so far fetched that there is an element willing to do the same thing within the US?

    Greg Taylor , February 20, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    Defining "Deep State" by its actions is appealing. Would the military veto of Kerry-negotiated ceasefire in Syria count? Some officers acted without apparent authority and were not reprimanded as a result. Would this have transpired "within the territory of the State" and, thus, meet this definition? Should it?

    PlutoniumKun , February 21, 2017 at 3:34 am

    Thats an interesting question. There can be a fine line between bureaucratic infighting and actual illegal and anti-democratic actions. On my definition I would say 'no', its not Deep State in that the actions were insubordinate and dangerous, but they took place outside the US so arguably were more the result of a power struggle between government factions. It was the result I think of Obama's weakness as a leader, not an actual Deep State action.

    Quentin , February 20, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Wouldn't any so-called Deep State be supported by factions in Congress? Sure. For instance, John McCain is in my view the epitome of the Deep State, one of its chief representatives, out in the open, a vanguard. The Clintons too, doubtless, though now outside government. If Congress gives no pushback, it bestows tacit/active agreement. Congress can rescind the privileges and power of all the organisations observers ascribe to the Deep State. So what's so mysterious? The notion of a Deep State's existence might just serve as a way to avoid responsibility, accountability, deny agency. Some shadowy bunch is running things, anything else new? On the other hand think tanks, contractors and subcontracters are less easily kept in place. Yet Congress can put an end to prisons for profit and erase one element of the deception, reduce the numbers if security clearances by defunding, etc. not things were are about to do. Eminence grise, one two buckle my shoe

    sgt_doom , February 20, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    McCain is too stupid. To better understand the Deep State, one must go a bit higher up the ladder.

    Look into the membership of the Bretton Woods Committee - the lobbyist group for the international super-rich (www.brettonwoods.org), and the Group of Thirty (www.group30.org).

    Once you understand these two groups, you'll be more aware.

    Persona au gratin , February 20, 2017 at 6:05 pm

    Loved the Group of Thirty pictorials on their home page. I counted exactly one genuine person of color (aka, "token negro") among the melange, with a handful of "half and halfs" of former British colonial heritage who of course have had time to assimilate and duly "see the light" as to the wisdom of continued perpetual white northern European supremacy. As for the few token Asians, they'll come around soon enough as well, although they ARE amazing students, aren't they?

    Kim Kaufman , February 20, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    Politicians are the puppets not the puppetmasters.

    Steve H. , February 20, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    We can avoid definite articles, but this is a defining article, and could become the definitive article.

    The most curious fact is that the phrase is showing up in the msm. I take it as confirmation of Lambert's point: 'Factional conflict within the deep state exists!'

    roger gathmann , February 20, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    I always attributed the use of the word to Peter Dale Scott. The Turkish phrase seems to me more of a parallel usage than the place from which the phrase is derived. In my cursory reading, the phrase originated in conspiracy theory – particularly around the assassination of JFK. I am not using conspiracy theory in a disparaging sense, since I don't think a belief in conspiracies (which is legally recognized, and was long one of the great themes of political science, from Aristotle to Montesquieu) is per se disqualifying. Scott, in the preface to Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, has a good take on the prototype of the Deep State – in his theory, there is always a deep political practice that is unacknowledged officially. For instance, Tammany New York of the late 19th century operated, on the surface, according to the legal order with a mayor and a bureaucracy, etc., but in practice, it was run by an elaborate system of kickbacks and the investment of certain private players with enormous governmental power. The Deep State, under this p.o.v., shouldn't be confused with bureaucrats and those invested with public power, but instead, is a collaboration between such bureaucrats and those in private positions who retain unacknowledged public power. To quote Scott: " A deep political system or process is one which habitually resorts to decision making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and society." By this definition, the endorsement of Trump by the National Border Patrol Council and the way in which, under Obama, certain Border Patrol officials sought to impede or change processes for taking in and giving due process to refugees are evidences of a deep political process.

    Cat's paw , February 20, 2017 at 5:33 pm

    Well, Scott's Deep Politics is published in 93. The Turkish term Deep State appears in print around 96 (maybe as late as 98–I'd have to look around for a cite). While the terms are relatively synonymous they are by no means equal. Best I can tell, Scott's starts using the word Deep State widely in the mid-2000's.

    Additionally, as I've come to understand it the term did not originate in conspiracy theory. Rather the term was picked up by conspiracy theorists from Turkish journalism as a useful shorthand for the alleged (and hidden) events and actors they were trying to describe. Personally, not that it matters, I think it's important to keep the original usage/meaning in mind. 1. b/c it was coined to describe a real yet inexplicable event–not speculation or a theory of some conspiracy: i.e., the JFK assassination. Wherein agents of military, representative government, and criminality (along with a "bimbo" straight out of central casting) who have no legitimate business doing business were obviously doing business–but what kind of business? Who knows, that's why it's Deep. 2. The term itself can easily drift into being an amorphous, ill-defined, but overdetermined and overly unified signifier on the order of "cabal" which is likely to happen anyway now that its wound its way into common parlance.

    I may just be quibbling, but I don't see deep political processes like Tammany or Border Patrol shenanigans as being of the same phenomena as the so-called Deep State. Deep State would usually imply elements of the military or, more especially, elements of the security apparatus (public and private) at times coordinating with, at other times interfering with, known political/institutional actors, corporate power, and criminal concerns that might involve money laundering or drug and human trafficking. As most here are noting, it is factional and adversarial–a network of several or many discreet entities that coordinate, align, and conflict according to shifting interests. It's paralegal, parapolitical, paraeconomic (or paramarket), and parainstitutional.

    And all of that to say that such a definition is wholly contingent upon there being empirical and on-going phenomena which corresponds approximately to the term itself.

    Yves Smith , February 20, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    Lambert debunked Scott's sloppy and internally inconsistent analysis, per the link he provided at the very top of the post. That's why he kept arguing against its use.

    DonCoyote , February 20, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    Thanks Lambert. Here's a bit more grist for this particular mill/passages from the rabbit hole (depending on what set of metaphors you like)

    1) Paranoia , a tabletop RPG game from the 80's. "The game's main setting is an immense, futuristic city called Alpha Complex. Alpha Complex is controlled by The Computer, a civil service AI construct The Computer employs Troubleshooters, whose job is to go out, find trouble, and shoot it. Player characters are usually Troubleshooters The player characters frequently receive mission instructions from the Computer that are incomprehensible, self-contradictory, or obviously fatal if adhered to, and side-missions (such as Mandatory Bonus Duties) that conflict with the main mission each player character is generally an unregistered mutant and a secret society member (which are both termination offenses in Alpha Complex), and has a hidden agenda separate from the group's goals, often involving stealing from or killing teammates."

    So: big on non-monolithic, also big on double/triple identities (troubleshooter/mutant/secret society), which we associate with the intelligence agencies, but also with revolving door politicians/lobbyists.

    2) The "incomprehensible/self-contradictory/conflict with the main mission" made me think of seven/eleven/twelve (depending on scholarship/personal preference) chess, most recently attributed to BHO–that is, actions who on the surface don't seem to make sense given the situation, but which conspiracy theorists/true believers think are actually directed at a future/buried/hidden/alternative problem. Although this would seem to fit better with at least a semi-monolithic Deep Society, because it is strategy, and a non-monolithic Deep Society would presumably be less organized/more tactically inclined.

    3) The Final Reflection , and especially the Klingon "equivalent" of chess, klin zha , and it's reflective version. Reflective klin zha is played with only one set of pieces. "The Reflective is not so much a variation but a strategic approach to an otherwise tactical game Once set up, the first to place is also the first to move. During each turn, the player chooses one piece, making all others the enemy. The player who captures the Goal on his turn is the victor." So I kill a piece protecting (next to) the goal, but on your turn you now control that piece, use it to capture the goal, and beat me.

    So: a smaller (but still non-monolithic) Deep State, with a large unitary set of "pieces" (the non-Deep State?). Again, while there are two sides playing, they are both using the same pieces to try to do the same thing, and they only have "control of the board" some of the time.

    So my takeaways: non-monolithic (and especially more than two sides), partial control (whether because of multiple/hidden identities or non-monolithic is unknown), and given the pathetic state of most of our media, most motives are "hidden", at least from casual view (cf for the media's "hidden" motives in today's links

    sgt_doom , February 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Globalists against (non-deep state capitalists) economic nationalists?

    susan the other , February 20, 2017 at 4:26 pm

    Here's a reminder (from NC a while back). It is a waste of time to deliberate over the existence of the deep state. What's important is participating in a state – a society – that is well run; where inequality is always exposed; where propaganda is always obvious. It's impossible to define "the deep state." I think Lambert was right when he said the definition of the deep state always turned out to be a big hairball.

    hemeantwell , February 20, 2017 at 8:15 pm

    I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but try this: I think that factional conflict, occurring during periods of systemic strain/crisis, is what leads otherwise contented and inertial sections of the state to act in ways that require concealment, either of actor or action. Reading a bit from the Glennon book linked above, wherein he makes much of Bagehot, reminded me of how the French political system used to be described as having something like a bureaucratic ballast keeping the ship of state from capsizing. That sort of conservative, continuity-maintaining function can grow claws, and that's what we're seeing now, particularly when US elites are trying to cobble a revised foreign/imperial policy to deal with China and Russia and the president is having trouble intoning the verities of US exceptionalism.

    barrisj , February 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Well, that lengthy disquisition seems to indeed "validate" – as it were – the "deep state" terminology if not its epistemological derivation(s) at the very least, readers keeping to the various formulae offered for "correct usage" won't be whacked upside their haids by the moderators if the term appears in a comment.
    Cheers.

    Michael , February 20, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    My first encounter with the idea of the Deep State was from Mike Lofgren's 2014 essay, "Anatomy of the Deep State", based upon his 25 year career as a Capitol Hill staffer. Here is the link:

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    JTMcPhee , February 20, 2017 at 4:44 pm

    Maybe worth a footnote or something? Is Charlie Wilson "deep state" in any way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_(Texas_politician) And his apparently occasional bed partner, Joanne Herring? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Herring

    How about those little quiet gatherings of the Koch-convened sort, that attract so little "press" attention, at Palm Springs and etcetera? Is the "deep state" limited to Great Game and globalism, or is the long steady erosion of even the myth of "democracy" and the transformation of that word into its opposite, via the efforts of all those very small number of people who profit from killing public education and regulatory capture and ascension to elected positions in everything from little town councils and school boards to state legislatures and statehouses, constitute part of what might qualify as some sort of "deep state?" ALEC is not on everyone's tongue, after all, but the power the people in it exert, through long application, sure forks over a whole lot of what maybe most people would think of as "the general welfare" and "public goods." IS Davos "over?" Is Bilderburg?

    Interesting how many of what would seem to me to be deep-staters are tied to Afghanistan, and of course Israel. One might even posit the Israelites have their own deep state, that has interlocking membership with players and factions and elements of the unelected and maybe public but mostly invisible thing that the phrase calls up in the minds of many of us.

    Having named the demon, if there is ever any agreement on a name and frame, does that give us mopes any power over the demon, or just another opening for its immanence in our sad little lives?

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    The first step would seem to be forcing the demon out from the shadows and into the sunlight so everyone can get a good look at it. I imagine it will then lash out with everything it has like a cornered animal, which will harden public opinion against it, and then it will be game on for real. A very dangerous game, to be sure, but what is the alternative?

    Horsewithnoname , February 20, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    From http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb14/dollar-deep-state2-14.html [Charles Hugh Smith, 02/2014]
    I have been studying the Deep State for 40 years, before it had gained the nifty name "deep state." What others describe as the Deep State I term the National Security State which enables the American Empire, a vast structure that incorporates hard and soft power–military, diplomatic, intelligence, finance, commercial, energy, media, higher education–in a system of global domination and influence.

    Back in 2007 I drew a simplified chart of the Imperial structure, what I called the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance (EMEGD):

    stockbrokher , February 20, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    1. "Example: "The Iraq WMD's yellowcake uranium episode was a Deep State Blooper." (See here for details; the yellowcake uranium was part of the Bush administration's WMD propaganda operation to foment the Iraq War.)"

    How is this an example of a blooper? It helped to achieve its intended goal. That it was exposed much later as a fabrication didn't vitiate its effect.

    2. Surprised so many examples/references (especially here) but none with Wall Street as a primary Deep State actor. Read something revelatory ( to me, anyway) recently re the CIA ( post WWII) being engineered mostly by Wall Street for the sole purpose of protecting big U.S Corporate interests. Sorry no time to dig it up, but I'm sure others more knowledgeable can expound. (As SerenityNow notes, Scott's book puts WS in the title.)

    Skip Intro , February 21, 2017 at 10:23 am

    Good points.
    What is interesting to me is the similarity of the modus operandi revealed in the yellowcake episode, where privileged information was 'leaked' to a tame 'journalist' to take out an enemy. In the case of the yellowcake, we generally accept the narrative that blowing Joe Wilson's wife's Non-Official Cover, but as part of a non-proliferation team, Valerie Plame was also in a position to directly interfere with WMD claims from the administration. OTOH, the WHIG and OVP are not very deep.
    In addition, it is easy to point to the Iraq debacle as a failure on the part of the 'deep state' that contrived it, but a more cynical view would consider that a quick victory is less profitable than a slow defeat. In that light, apparently glaring errors, like the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, may be understood to be insurance that has paid off with a successful insurgency, a weakened state where oil can be bought or taken without any pesky national government interference, and eventually, trained military leaders for IS, the next-gen enemy with actual ground troops and conquered territory.

    I was surprised that there wasn't a reference to Ike's warning about the Military Industrial Complex, which seems like the original American reference to an extra-democratic coalition of interests that could influence or control policy.
    Another milestone would be the Iran-Contra affair, where we heard North and Poindexter drooling over an 'off the shelf operational capacity' to circumvent constitutional control of foreign policy (a market niche now filled by Erik Prince and Blackwater/Xe/Academi). In connection with this scheme, we also witnessed intelligence officials colluding with arms merchants to influence a US election by arming enemies, as well as running drugs into the US to fund said independent foreign policy. I think the illegality is well established, as for killings within the US territory, we can ask Orlando Letelier.

    scraping_by , February 20, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    Ran into an interesting passage in Kevin Phillips's 1994 book Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics . He speaks of an 'iron triangle' of politics, interest groups, and media that turns aside the cyclic outsider revolutions that would otherwise renew American political institutions. If Trump has this view of his populism, it makes sense he spends so much time disparaging the MSM; not just a celebrity feud, not just annoyance about bitchiness, but a reasoned effort to break an elite power tool.

    If Phillips's iron triangle fits the description of a Deep State, and it can, this may be an actual conflict over principles and convictions. Because the elite believe deeply in their own position, and are convinced they're doing God's work.

    PhilM , February 20, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    To me this is the kind of synthetic journalism that really sifts meaning from noise. And uniquely, on this site, the reading lists and comments are sophisticated and thoughtful additions and refinements, like the peer review offered from any scholarly community. This article is not definitive; but it could grow and grow, and then one could easily call it "seminal." This is work that I happily pay for.

    From the history of the 1930s: one notes that for Heydrich to consolidate his bosses' power over Germany, he felt it necessary to "declare war" on the existing German civil service in 1935–not just the police force, but the entire bureaucracy; and to seize control of the foreign intelligence services as well as the domestic. The only successful hold-out was the Abwehr, the military intelligence service, which succeeded in preserving its independence in a very much more closely circumscribed field.

    So Heydrich definitely felt there was a "state within the state" that needed to be co-opted and ideologically purified and above all surveilled, before Hitler's power was secured. That, in my humble view, is what the "deep state" is. It's the most important part of the question "quis custodiet custodes ipsos," and why Plato had a philosopher king instead of just a bunch Guardians, and why a nobility requires a monarchy.

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    Yes it's great to see this issue being given the attention it deserves and being subjected to serious analysis by NC and the commentariat. Thanks Lambert!

    witters , February 21, 2017 at 2:22 am

    A philosopher king who was poor, lived on public provision, owned no property, had no family, and lived in accomodation from whom none could be forbidden. And so just & virtuous.

    Gman , February 20, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    Only relatively recently having become aware of the term, 'deep state' I would assume, in its most basic form, it refers to those mostly 'unseen' and 'unknown' conservative we know best types who wield uninterrupted, often disproportionate influence without having to suffer the dreadful inconvenience or potential indignity of seeking a periodic democratic mandate.

    Watt4Bob , February 20, 2017 at 6:29 pm

    It seems to me that there was a lot of talk about the birth of the DHS being the biggest reorganization of the federal government since the New Deal.

    That talk included concerns that Bush was putting thousands of dead-enders in bureaucratic positions, and that they would be impossible to remove in the future.

    From Occupy.com (May 2013);

    But here's the strange thing: unlike the Pentagon, this monstrosity draws no attention whatsoever - even though, by our calculations, this country has spent a jaw-dropping $791 billion on "homeland security" since 9/11. To give you a sense of just how big that is, Washington spent an inflation-adjusted $500 billion on the entire New Deal.

    We've been talking around here about the breaking of rice bowls and its affect on the credentialed class, the implication being the hysterical, unorganized revolt of people who feel their well-being threatened by the rise of Trump.

    Bush II broke a lot of rice bowls when he leveraged the fearful post 9/11 environment to bring about the reorganization of the federal government under the DHS;

    From Legislating Civil Service Reform:
    The Homeland Security Act of 2002
    ; (emphasis mine)

    The Administration presents their strategy as one that requires them
    to have more control over federal personnel in order to provide national
    security and protect America. For example, President Bush argued that he needed the freedom "to put the right people at the right place at the right
    time to protect the American people."

    The metaphor of physical placement-to "put" federal workers in particular places at particular times-is rationalized as a strategy to protect America,
    much like one would move a Bishop or Knight in a chess game to protect
    the King.

    This physical placement metaphor was also picked up by the news
    media. In one summary of the issues, an article in the Washington Post
    noted, "The White House wants to retain the ability to remove
    some employees from unions for national security reasons," and "Bush
    wants the ability to move workers from one part of the department to
    another to meet rapidly changing needs.

    This metaphor of physical placement suggests that the Administration requires a particularly high degree of power and control over personnel,
    but that degree of power is presented as rational and justified in light of national security.

    To the extent that the audience is concerned about national security, then
    they are invited to see the Administration strategy-in this case,
    its need for power over personnel-as one that is consistent with that concern.

    From the same paper, the other side of the argument ; (emphasis mine)

    Union leaders saw this issue in a different light; they disputed the details of the proposal and also questioned the motives behind them.
    Brian DeWyngaert, Assistant to the President of AFGE, saw the reforms
    as an attempt by the administration to weaken the civil service system, to shift from "public administration" to "political administration."

    DeWyngaert cites a paper, written by two former Republican personnel
    management officials, that asserts, " The President can expect opposition
    from official Washington's 'permanent government ,' a network that includes the career civil service, and its allies in Congress, the leaders of federal
    unions, and the chiefs of managerial and professional associations
    representing civil servants."

    DeWyngaert expresses union distrust of the administration, arguing that
    the real goal of the administration was to "control what agencies do
    [ ] to change some of the personnel rules [ ] to the point where they are going to follow your line because you control their pay, their determination at will,
    their layoff.

    W4B;

    What I'm pointing out, is that what we're calling the Deep State includes the "permanent government" mentioned above, and that in reorganizing the government under the control of the new DHS, the right, in the person of Bush II was attempting to replace a unionized, independent, New Deal flavored government bureaucracy with one that could be more easily controlled, because it was more politicized.

    I'm saying that both the democratic, and the republican wings of the republican party have made peace with the notion of a more politicized "permanent government", and that more politicized "permanent government", is now showing its loyalty to the status quo by doing what's expected of it, joining the resistance.

    PhilM , February 20, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    This is exactly what I think, too, and what Heydrich recognized in 1935: that a large government has a hive mind. Without the SD ("Security Services"), the SS, and the Nazi Party organization, he could never have bent that hive mind, made of all those entrenched, entitled, relatively law-abiding functionaries, to his will.

    Trump has none of those tools at his disposal, so there's no reason to expect his lasting very long or getting much done.

    That's what makes the hysteria about his being like Hitler so very misplaced. If Trump had an organization like the Nazi party hundreds of thousands strong, ready to die in the streets for him, with operatives ready to put into place to take over the management of the government effectively at all upper levels, it would be another matter. As it is, he's grasping at straws from other talent pools. No wonder the bookies are giving him lower odds.

    schultzzz , February 20, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Chris Hedges, on his RT show, recently defined it almost exclusively in terms of big business. I think the quote was something very short like, "It's Raytheon, Goldman, and Exxon!!!"

    Which complicates things, as Trump's cabinet has reps from Goldman and Exxon in it.

    neo-realist , February 20, 2017 at 10:36 pm

    On that tip more or less, I recall watching a video of Dick Gregory and Mark Lane talking about the MLK Assassination, and Gregory made a point of saying more or less that the intelligence apparatus doesn't act unilaterally, but that it acts at the direction of the aristocrats, i.e., oligarchs, big business, etc. The aristocrats tells the apparatus to go after those governments and politicians that are acting against their interests.

    In a documentary called King–Montgomery to Memphis (GREAT DOCUMENTARY), Harry Belafonte said that when King antagonized the "money power" , he was pretty much marked for death.

    Anonymous , February 20, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    Anecdotally, I was working with a former Senator at the time of the DHS formation who was still highly involved with the Bush administration. in fact Cheney had them on speed dial. I can tell you flat out that despite spouting the same garbage about freedom to reorganize on the fly, if you talked with them long enough the ability to fire employees at will ALWAYS ended up being the reason when anyone pinned him down about how departments would be reorganized on the fly. Very clearly it was about making sure that employees would know that they should show no integrity at all in doing their job most particularly in regards to either upholding the Constitution or recognizing the legal rights of any person, citizen of America or not.

    Dave in Austin , February 20, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    Deep state versus deep government

    All modern states are bureaucratic. So the surface state which the public can replace, what we usually call "the government", is underpinned by a deep and essentially invisible substrate of people and institutions. The characteristics of the deep government are 1) opaque bureaucratic decision-making and written output designed to mislead not inform, 2) invisibility because the press cant easily turn the story into a narrative with individuals who represent good and evil, and because the national press (NYT, WP, and even the WSJ) no longer reports the news but filters the policies to either spark outrage or encourage cooperation, 3) The deep government employees are smart, educated and have come up through the ranks (think Bob Gates). They are great people, fun to be with but often incredibly insular and sure that "You people out there don't understand". And they are often right about that. Don't underestimate their knowledge.

    Under most conditions the surface government, the deep government and the parts of the deep state outside the government (ie the press) are in general agreement and work together smoothly. Today the surface state (President, congress and soon probably the courts) are trying to bring about change that the individuals within the deep government fundamentally disagrees with on issues like immigration, national self-sufficiency and overseas threats. All major changes (our entry into WWI and WWII, the civil rights movement, tax and subsidy law, Obama's immigration program) generate resistance. Sometimes I agree with the deep, sneaky part of the government (entering WWII); other times, I don't (Vietnam, Bush in Iraq, Obama's immigration policy).

    Our deep state is like that of most democracies and differs from authoritarian deep states in a number of fundamental ways: 1) our military is adamantly apolitical. All officers take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not the government (in the late 1960s, as the military got sucked into domestic policing, many senior officers started reading and discussing the Constitution among themselves), 2) No U.S. deep state emerged out of our two formative struggles, the revolution and the Civil War . Much of the world (China, Russia and the colonies that became free in the 1950s and 60s) had a different history, 3) We have no ethnic and religious deep states- no Moslem Brotherhood, no Burmese Buddhist nationalist, although we do have passionate ethnic groups that prefer to operate out-of-sight (Jewish, Irish Catholic, Cuban, Indian to name a few) . 4) Countries that fight overseas wars or that fear internal revolutions all develop a deep state. All the ex-colonies that didn't (Iraq, Egypt, Guatemala and a hundred more) had the weak state overthrown and replaced with a strong and deep state. In the US the first deep state hints came after WWI (not WWII) with large caches of unappropriated money going into the hands of Naval Intelligence (who do you think paid for the Flying Tigers?). The original sin of our liberal deep state was the campaign to get us into WWII. A good cause- and a terrible precedent.

    Finally, the deep government and the national elite are not the same. The deep government is largely a meritocracy filled with alert people who know which way the wind is blowing. If real Communists or real Fascists took over they would either stay inside, keep getting paid, and quietly try to undermine the new leaders or they would take early retirement. They don't write biographies or make statements because they are essentially private people immersed in their private lives, what the Communists used to call Careerists. The national elites are something else. They either feel independent (the hereditary rich, celebrities and Trump and the self-made billionaires) or are the insecure product of upper middle class families, Ivy League and second-level private colleges and good social backgrounds. They work in large institutions they don't own or control. The latter group wants to exercise power because it gives meaning to their otherwise uninteresting lives (think, academics, the non-profit sector and Federal judges). The self-made rich exercise power to become richer and because they love to control organizations that compete (Who owns all the NFL teams?). Both the deep state and the deep government are open to people of education, good breeding, ambition, discretion and good luck.

    Is there any way to fix this? Probably not but nobody seems to bother the countries that don't do foreign adventures To roughly quote from the Bin Laden interview after 9/11, when he as asked "Why did you attack America?" he laughed and said "We didn't attack Switzerland". A better national press would help. If there are any billionaires out there interested in providing $100K salaries to real smart MBA students who like to dig, let me know. A few platoons of young I.F. Stones of various political hews might go a long way. But deep states are here to stay. The best we can do is monitor. analyze and publicize them.

    Patricia , February 20, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    What a fascinatingly bland presentation, revering deep state careerists for their solid private lives and good-breeding, while others are power-hungry insecure product searching for a cure to their dullness.

    And calling for "platoons" of new IF Stones from among MBAs, of all places!

    Thanks for the entertainment.

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    +1

    Tomonthebeach , February 20, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    As a retired member of the Deep State, I find it amusing at the imbecility of right- (or left) wing conspiracy nuts who can invent amazing chains of undermining collaboration across agency lines orchestrated by some powerful shadow demons.

    If federal employees were really that effective, there would be no private sector wage gap, the VA and DOD would share a seamless electronic record system, and Snowden would have the Medal of Freedom, and HRC's fingerprints would have been all over the gun that killed Vince Foster.

    The Deep State, if you want to call it that, exists so the people get the support and services they need despite confusing and often conflicting legislation, presidential directives, and agency regulations.

    DH , February 20, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    I generally apply Occam's Razor to conspiracy theories. It is generally more likely that events occur due to incompetence, lack of attention, or emotional reactions than conspiracy. To pull a secret conspiracy off successfully over a long time, you need to be really smart, really focused and not have many people, otherwise it is no longer secret.

    The bigger the organization, the more likely you are to have a reversion to the mean of most of the population, and most people are more likely to turn a blind eye than participate in something that means they could lose their pension as well as getting home late for dinner.

    So the biggest issue that Trump has with the bureaucracy is how to manage Parkinson's Law. He did in the private sector by running around saying "You're fired" but he can't do that to career civil servants. http://www.economist.com/node/14116121

    I am sure that there are a bunch of bureaucrat top dogs that don't like the invasion of their turf. They are, after all, fundamentally political animals very jealous of their territory. Some of them might even talk to each other, but probably half of them despise the other half.

    The biggest threat to us is that we slowly acquiesce to security theater that quietly gets more and more invasive. The police etc. are the most likely to be organized as some sort of "deep state" as some departments already have an us vs. them attitude.

    JTMcPhee , February 20, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    Tom, maybe one part of the bigger thing called "federal service" does that. I spent 13 years with the US EPA through the Reagan Revolution (and it was an amazing coup). A number of EPA employees, despite the threats of "RIFs" (reductions in force, or wholesale politically motivated firings), worked hard and quietly to do everything they could to slow the assault on "regulation" of sh!tty corporate behavior that threatened human health and the environment. There were a lot of go-alongs, usually later comers who were looking to get their resumes padded before moving to the dark side, but there were a lot who were serious in their commitment, and aware of their vulnerability, who continued to press for enforcement actions, regulations with teeth that required industries to spend money ("internalize") to install process changes and end-of-pipe-or-stack controls (which often resulted in increased profits for the corpos who had an excuse and tax deductions to update their plants. And there was continued insistence on doing the data gathering that supported the proofs of harm that pollution and toxics cause. There was an 'environmental justice" initiative despite the "f__k the poor" administration attitudes and policies, and a criminal enforcement operation that actually put corporate officers in jail and at least made them take notice of potential consequences. There are obviously still a lot of employees at EPA to take their mission to be protection of public health and the environment, preserving decades of data collection and soldiering on despite the "Mandate for Leadership" quackery and fear-and-loathing fomenting.

    But your limiting the definition as you do is incomplete at best. The state security overlords, the oligokleptocracy, and the other inimical factions and parties that have been described in this post and comments, seem to me the real nuts and bolts of what 'deep state' is getting at. Not the many federal employees who, despite all the sh!t that flows down from above and laterally from the culture inside and outside the agencies, actually try to do the job of "positive governance," like a few people I have dealt with in the Social Security Admin, the VA, the CMS behemoth and a few others. I often wonder how people persist in those jobs and don't burn out or get fired. I was close to both while doing my thing at EPA, 1980-90 (the Reagan years - I had two-plus with Carter as president before that, to see how a less hostile-to-regulation-in-the-best-sense admin might operate.

    Vatch , February 20, 2017 at 9:27 pm

    Tom, I'm curious. In which department of the federal government were you employed?

    integer , February 20, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    Hard to take your comment seriously. Do you really think that the Deep State consists of federal employees who are concerned with VA and the rank and file of the DOD, or that they are interested in providing "support and services" to the people? I think it's likely that your belief that you were part of the Deep State is incorrect.

    Mothy , February 20, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    No discussion of the Deep State would be complete without reading "Spooks," by Jim Hougan. It was a seminal book written in 1980 (I believe) that introduced the notion of retiring IC operatives joining private company security apparati. Tell your compatriots you're acting on behalf of the government and a patriot will do ANYTHING. "The Conversation" was a depiction of one of the main characters in the book who had previously wiretapped most of Manhatten back in the early Sixties; he worked for either Hoffa or the Kennedy brothers or both. Really an unbelievable book getting more and more difficult to find. Ironically– or not– I believe it was Hougan's last piece of investigative journalism.

    No Idea , February 20, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    We cross out "conducting killings" for the American context (or do we?).

    "Character assassination. What a wonderful idea. Ordinary assassination only works once, but this one works every day."
    ― Terry Pratchett, The Truth

    Fool , February 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    A succinct way that i like to think of the "deep state" is whoever the CIA works for.

    Vatch , February 20, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    "It's called the ruling class because it rules." –Arthur Silber

    The rulers are the ones who rule. The ruling class includes non-rulers who are in the same socio-economic class as most of the people who rule.

    buermann , February 21, 2017 at 12:48 am

    I'd always assumed the concept originated with Peter Dale Scott, who, before he wrote the book "The American Deep State", used it all over the place in 2007's "The Road to 9/11". I've read neither but for excerpts, the concept merely referred to covert agencies acting outside the scope of democratic oversight - whether it's local police departments running out of control torture squads and black sites or national intelligence agencies acting as the private armies of the executive. That such groups might oust a sitting executive is of course the heart and soul of all his conspiracy mongering about the JFK assassination (I like his poetry an awful lot, but I remember trying to get through Cocaine Politics and either the sources didn't check out or they were untraceable, in any case I gave up on it).

    https://books.google.com/books?id=op39ymd2um0C&printsec=frontcover&q=%22deep%20state%22

    H. Alexander Ivey , February 21, 2017 at 1:18 am

    If you want to find a consistent, broad, and useful meaning of a concept, and a phase or 'name' for that concept, look for books written on the subject. Postings, blogs, and even published articles do not have the authority that books have (it's not just because being hit upside the head with a book will hurt a lot more than with a blog posting, har,har).

    My recommendation is Deep State, based on my understanding on Mike Lohgren's The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government .

    I must say I personally don't like the term. When I use it with people who believe that Rep & Dem describe the US government, I get the old eye roll, tin foil hat outfitting treatment. Humm, maybe I'll lead in with the term 'Washington Consensus'. They get that one around here in Southeast Asia. They haven't forgotten or forgiven the IMF about the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

    St Jacques , February 21, 2017 at 4:03 am

    I hate the term deep state because, unlike the mic, for example, which has a clarity about it, it is so vague and malleable a term as to be almost useless except for Hollywood films and conspiracy nutters, but if there is such a thing, here is what it might look like:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8IvKx0c19w

    Damson , February 21, 2017 at 6:56 am

    It goes back to 9/11.

    A must-read is the 'Collateral Damage' investigation in which the Office Of Naval Intelligence features as the main exposing agency of exactly this issue – a parallel power structure operating on a black budget:

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Collateral_Damage_-_part_1.pdf

    fairleft , February 21, 2017 at 7:36 am

    The central task of the U.S. 'deep state' is to maintain or expand the permanent war economy. So it is the military-industrial complex. The top-of-food-chain spy agencies - whose primary task within the MIC is to create enemies and paranoia - are the brains and mouthpiece of the deep state.

    begob , February 21, 2017 at 7:58 am

    Didn't see any mention of organised crime. And does the DS distinguish between unlawful and illegal?

    PH , February 21, 2017 at 8:53 am

    Think kaleidoscope in motion. Colors are real but hard to predict. Preset patterns, but affected by outside movement.

    I love histories, but I know they simplify and often mislead. Anyway, the trick is to spot the power emerging, not how it turned out with the last generation.

    I suggest that the best approach looking forward is to start with the existing visible power bureaucracies both inside govt and outside govt but on its periphery.

    For each behemoth, daily routine is the biggest driver. And with that usually goes shared values. Such things usually push events.

    Offhand, I can think of a few starting points. If these separate bureaucracies are subject to some common control, I would like to know exactly who and exactly how.

    Military/defense contractors. Mostly consumed with myopic concerns. Top generals and bureaucrats do think tank type stuff, but mostly technical. Obvious collusion with industry over defense budgets.

    Not sure what attitude is toward Donald.

    NSA and tech contractors. Foreign world to me, but obvious iceberg.

    State Dept and White House and press chattering class. Propaganda organizations, basically. I am sure they have clubs and secret handshakes, but not sure should've called organized.

    Main CIA Narrow bureaucrats.

    Off-the-books CIA intersecting with business. These have been the most spectacular stories and escapades. Edwin Wilson. Air America. Coups in the 50s. Maybe CIA assassination of Kennedy.

    Did these operations drive history? Maybe. If those types of connections drive events today, what are they?

    I do not see a unitary deep state.

    Steven Greenberg , February 21, 2017 at 9:10 am

    Nobody has raised the issue of COG. Here is one excerpt from Peter Dale Scott's book that talks about and somewhat defines it. Much more in the book of course.

    One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, the 1980 "October Surprise" plot to prevent Carter's reelection, Iran-Contra, and 9/ 11 has been the background involvement in all these deep events of personnel from America's highest-level emergency planning, that is, Continuity of Government (COG) planning, known inside the Pentagon as "the Doomsday Project." The implementation of COG plans on 9/ 11 was the culmination of decades of such planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes designed for domination abroad.

    Scott, Peter Dale. The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy (War and Peace Library). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Mattski , February 21, 2017 at 9:28 am

    "Seems pretty big to be deep "

    Not logical. The Deep State is those elements of the establishment that direct the course of government irrespective of e pluribus.

    Perfectly good term, arising from popular usage, whose boundaries–hopefully needless to say–people who know better will not dictate anyway. Would have been much better, rather than to attack its use at the outset, just to investigate it. Elitist exercise, shaped like this.

    [Feb 21, 2017] The rise in income inequality was promoted by the Reagan revolution. That in many ways was its purpose. It is also the agenda of Paul Ryan and his A Better Way .

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democrats sold out 35 years ago. ..."
    "... Yes it's more profitable to have a non-unionized workforce. ..."
    "... Doesn't mean we should. Doesn't mean we should get rid of environmental or safety regulations. ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    pgl : , -1

    "it is never good to pass up an opportunity to remind readers that the rise in inequality since 1980 has been something that those who made the Reagan Revolution hoped to accomplish and are proud of.

    Bargaining power has flowed to finance and the executive suite and away from the shop- and assembly-floor. Top tax rates have come way down. It could have been otherwise--this is, primarily, a thing that has happened in English-speaking countries. It has happened much less elsewhere. It could have happened much less here."

    The rise in income inequality was promoted by the Reagan revolution. That in many ways was its purpose. It is also the agenda of Paul Ryan and his "A Better Way".

    We used to know how to lower trade barriers and welcome new technology and have the benefits accrue to all. We lost our political will some 35 years ago. And electing Trump has not exactly regained our old mojo.

    Peter K. -> pgl... February 20, 2017 at 12:24 PM , 2017 at 12:24 PM
    "We lost our political will some 35 years ago. "

    Who is this we kemosabe?

    Democrats sold out 35 years ago. And you keep defending them.

    libezkova -> Peter K.... , February 20, 2017 at 05:41 PM
    "Democrats sold out 35 years ago."

    True. Bill Clinton was elected in 1982. He essentially sold the Party to Wall Street, although first signs appeared under Carter...

    Peter K. -> Sanjait... , February 20, 2017 at 03:39 PM
    Yes it's more profitable to have a non-unionized workforce.

    Doesn't mean we should. Doesn't mean we should get rid of environmental or safety regulations.

    libezkova -> Peter K.... , February 20, 2017 at 05:44 PM
    "it's more profitable to have a non-unionized workforce"

    And that was partially accomplished by moving manufacturing South.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Does the Chicago Bears quarterback really need 126 million for seven years -- up from to top NFL paid Joe Namath's 600K a couple of generations back?

    Feb 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Denis Drew : February 20, 2017 at 02:10 PM , 2017 at 02:10 PM
    Manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing. Everybody misses the BRONTOSAURUS in the room. 4% of jobs gone from automation and trade - half and half -- true. But, 50% of employees have lost 10% of overall income -- out of the 20% of a couple of generations back.

    (This reminds me of comparing EITC's 1/2 1% redistribution with 45% of workers earning less than $15 an hour.)

    Could 50% of the workforce squeeze 10% of income back out of the 49% who take 70% (14% of their earnings!)? They sure could if they could collectively agree not to show up for work otherwise. Could if the 49% in turn could squeeze 10% out of the 1% (the infamous one percent) who lately take 20% of overall income -- up from 10% a couple of generations back.

    (Does the Chicago Bears quarterback really need $126 million for seven years -- up from to top NFL paid Joe Namath's $600,000 [adjusted truly] a couple of generations back?)

    Mechanism? Ask Germany (ask Jimmy Hoffa).

    * * * * * *

    In case nobody thought about it -- I never thought about until Trump -- it goes like this. The NLRA(a) was written in 1935 leaving blank the use criminal sanctions for muscling the labor market. Even if it did specify jail time for union busting it is extremely arguable that state penalties for muscling ANY persons seeking to collectively bargain (not just union organizers and joiners following fed procedure) would overlap, not violate federal preemption.

    It seems inarguable -- under long established First Amendment right to organize collective bargaining -- that federal preemption cannot force employees down an organizing road that is unarguably impassable, because unenforceable.

    Upshot: states may make union busting a felony -- hopefully backed by RICO for persistent violators.

    6% union density is like 20/10 blood pressure. It starves every other healthy process.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Denis Drew ... , February 20, 2017 at 02:14 PM
    Understood. Lost manufacturing jobs was a big hit to union employment aside from the longshoremen.
    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 02:37 PM
    In 1967-68 was working the waterfront in SF. Saw the crews of Stevedores and Longshoremen load the ships; on the docks, down in the holds, using boom winches, forklifts, and muscle (dangerous work). By 1970, containerization had replaced 90% of them. And, it continues with computerization of storage and loading of containers (something I worked on in 1975). Remember the nephew in the 'Wire'? One day a week if he was lucky. David Simon knew of what he wrote.
    cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 05:02 PM
    One of the Michael Moore movies (probably but not sure whether about Flint) made the point rather explicitly - former manufacturing workers retrained as law enforcement or prison officers perhaps for employment in other states or "dealing with" their former colleagues driven to crime or at least into the arms of the law enforcement system.

    [Feb 20, 2017] Why Extreme Inequality Causes Economic Collapse naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fig. 3a Income Share of U.S. Top 1% (Reich, 2013) & 3b Reich notes that the two peaks look like a suspension bridge, with highs followed by precipitous drops. (Original Source: Piketty & Saez, 2003) ..."
    "... Paying for policy favors ..."
    "... Removing constraints on dangerous behavior ..."
    "... Increasing the public's vulnerability ..."
    "... Increasing their own intake ..."
    "... financial intermediaries. ..."
    "... Or Ben Bernanke in his book "The Courage to Act": "Money is fungible. One dollar is like any other". ..."
    "... "I adapted this general idea to show how, by affecting banks' loanable funds, monetary policy could influence the supply of intermediated ..."
    "... no longer depend exclusively on insured deposits for funding, nondeposit sources of funding are likely to be relatively more expensive than deposits" ..."
    "... The first channel worked through the banking system By developing expertise in gathering relevant information, as well as by maintaining ongoing relationships with customers, banks and similar intermediaries ..."
    "... and thus hurt borrowers" (Bernanke [1983b]). ..."
    "... A herding started by William McChesney Martin Jr, that thought "banks actually pick up savings and pass them out the window, that they are intermediaries ..."
    "... obviously not so in any human activity. ..."
    "... We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only serve if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and practice. This soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are trying to develop. ..."
    "... haha, unfortunately it's the apex predator species that is in danger of sudden extinction as its prey declines. Of course the Darwinian analogy doesn't hold up well because Darwinian selection works on all individuals of a species without distinction. A much better analogy is a rigged game. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    According to a recent study by Oxfam International, in 2010 the top 388 richest people owned as much wealth as the poorest half of the world's population– a whopping 3.6 billion people. By 2014, this number was down to 85 people. Oxfam claims that, if this trend continues, by the end of 2016 the top 1% will own more wealth than everyone else in the world combined. At the same time, according to Oxfam, the extremely wealthy are also extremely efficient in dodging taxes, now hiding an estimated $7.6 trillion in offshore tax-havens.[3]

    Why should we care about such gross economic inequality?[4] After all, isn't it natural? The science of flow says: yes, some degree of inequality is natural, but extreme inequality violates two core principles of systemic health: circulation and balance.

    Circulation represents the lifeblood of all flow-systems, be they economies, ecosystems, or living organisms. In living organisms, poor circulation of blood causes necrosis that can kill. In the biosphere, poor circulation of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. strangles life and would cause every living system, from bacteria to the biosphere, to collapse. Similarly, poor circulation of money, goods, resources, and services leads to economic necrosis – the dying off of large swaths of economic tissue that ultimately undermines the health of the economy as a whole.

    In flow systems, balance is not simply a nice way to be, but a set of complementary factors – such as big and little; efficiency and resilience; flexibility and constraint – whose optimal balance is critical to maintaining circulation across scales. For example, the familiar branching structure seen in lungs, trees, circulatory systems, river deltas, and banking systems (Fig. 1) connects a geometrically constant ratio of a few large, a few more medium-sized, and a great many small entities. This arrangement, which mathematicians call a fractal, is extremely common because it's particular balance of small, medium, and large helps optimize circulation across different levels of the whole. Just as too many large animals and too few small ones creates an unstable ecosystem, so financial systems with too many big banks and too few small ones tend towards poor circulation, poor health, and high instability.

    In his documentary film, Inequality for All, Robert Reich uses virtuous cycles to clarify how robust circulation of money serves systemic health. In virtuous cycles, each step of money movement makes things better. For example, when wages go up, workers have more money to buy things, which should increase demand, expand the economy, stimulate hiring, and boost tax revenues. In theory, government will then spend more money on education which will increase worker skills, productivity and hopefully wages. This stimulates even more circulation, which starts the virtuous cycle over again. In flow terms, all of this represents robust constructive flow, the kind that develops human and network capital and enhances well-being for all.

    Of course, economies also sometimes exhibit vicious cycles, in which weaker circulation makes everything go downhill – i.e., falling wages, consumption, demand, hiring, tax revenues, government spending, etc. These are destructive flows, ones that erode system health.

    Both vicious and virtuous cycles have occurred in various economies at various times and under various economic theories and policy pressures. But, for the last 30 years, the global economy in general and the American economy in particular has witnessed a strange combination pattern in which prosperity is booming for CEOs and Wall Street speculators, while the rest of the economy – particularly workers, the middle class, and small businesses – have undergone a particularly vicious cycle. Productivity has grown massively, but wages have stagnated. Consumption has remained reasonably high because, in an effort to maintain their standard of living, working people have: 1) added hours, becoming two-income families, often with two and even three jobs per person; and 2) increased household debt. Inequality has skyrocketed because effective tax rates on the 1% have dropped (notwithstanding a partial reversal under Obama), while their income and profits have risen steeply.

    We should care about this kind of inequality because history shows that too much concentration of wealth at the top, and too much stagnation everywhere else indicate an economy nearing collapse. For example, as Reich shows (Figure 1a & b), both the crashes of 1928 and 2007 followed on the heels of peaks in which the top 1% owned 25% of the country's total wealth.

    Fig. 3a Income Share of U.S. Top 1% (Reich, 2013) & 3b Reich notes that the two peaks look like a suspension bridge, with highs followed by precipitous drops. (Original Source: Piketty & Saez, 2003)

    What accounts for this strange mix of increasing concentration at the top and increasing malaise everywhere else? Putting aside the parallels to 1929 for a moment, most common explanations for today's situation include: the rise of technology which makes many jobs obsolete; and globalization which puts incredible pressures on companies to lower wages and outsource jobs to compete against low-wage workers around the world.

    But, while technology and globalization are clearly creating transformative pressures, neither of these factors completely explains our current situation. Yes, technology makes many jobs obsolete, but it also creates many new jobs. Yet, where the German, South Korean and Norwegian governments invest in educating their workforce to fill those new jobs, the American government has been cutting back on education for decades. A similar thought holds for globalization. Yes, high-volume industrialism – that is, head-to-head competition over price of mass-produced, uniform goods – leads to a race to the bottom; that's been known for a long time. But in The Work of Nations (2010), Robert Reich also points out that the companies that are flourishing through globalization and technology are ones pursuing what he calls high-value capitalism, the high-quality customization of goods and services that can't be duplicated by mass-produced uniformity at cheap places around the world.

    So, while the impacts of globalization and technology are profound, the real explanation for inequality lies primarily with an economic belief that, intentionally or not, serves to concentrate wealth at the top by extracting it from everywhere else. This belief system is called variously neoliberalism, Reaganomics, the Chicago School, and trickle-down economics. It is easily recognized by its signature ideas: deregulation; privatization; cut taxes on the rich; roll back environmental protections; eliminate unions; and impose austerity on the public. The idea was that liberating market forces would cause a rising tide that lifted all boats, but the only boat that actually rose was that of the .01%. Meanwhile, instability has grown.

    The impact this belief system has had on the American economy and its capacities can be seen in American education. Trickle-down theories are all about cutting taxes on the wealthy, which means less money for public education, more young people burdened with huge college debt, and fewer American workers who can fill the new high-tech jobs.

    To be fair, this process is not just about greed. Most of the people who participate in this economic debacle do not realize its danger because they believed what they were told by the saints and sages of economics, and many are rewarded for following its principles. So, what really causes the kind of inequality that drives economies toward collapse? The basic answer from the science of flow is: economic necrosis. But, let me flesh out the story.

    Institutional economists talk about two main types of economic strategies: extractive and solution-seeking. (Hopefully, these names are self-explanatory.) Most economies contain both. But, if the extractive forces become too powerful, they begin to use their power to rig the rules of the economic game to favor themselves. This creates what scientists call a positive feedback loop, one in which "the more you have, the more you get." Seen in many kinds of systems, this loop creates a powerful pull that sucks resources to the top, and drains it away from the rest of the system causing necrosis. For example, chemical runoff into the Gulf of Mexico accelerates algae growth. This creates an escalating, "the more you have, the more you get" process, in which massive algae growth sucks up all the oxygen in the surrounding area, killing all of the nearby sea life (fish, shrimp, etc.) and creating a large "dead zone."

    Neoliberal economics set up a parallel situation by allowing the wealthy to use their money to extract ever more money from the overall economy. The uber-wealthy grow wealthier by:

    All of these processes help the already rich concentrate more, and circulate less. In flow terms, therefore, gross inequality indicates a system that has: 1) too much concentration and too little circulation; and 2) an imbalance of wealth and power that is likely to create ever more extraction, concentration, unaccountability, and abuse. This process accelerates until the underlying human network becomes exhausted and/or the ongoing necrosis reaches a point of collapse. When this point is reached, the society will have three choices: learn, regress, or collapse.

    What then shall we do? Obviously, we need to improve our "solution seeking" behavior in realms from business and finance to politics and media. Much of this is already taking place. From socially-responsible business and alternative forms of ownership, to democratic reform groups, alternative media, and the new economy movement – reforms are arising on all sides.

    But, the solutions we need are also often blocked by the forces we are trying to overcome, and impeded by the massive merry-go-round momentum of "business as usual." Today's reforms also lack power because they are taking place piecemeal, in a million separate spots with very little cross-group unity.

    How do we overcome these obstacles? The science of flow offers not so much a specific strategy, as an empowering change of perspective. In essence, it provides a more effective way to think about the processes we see every day.

    The dynamics explained above are very well known; they are basic physics, just like the law of gravity. Applying them to today's economic debates can be extremely helpful because the latter have devolved into ideological debates devoid of any scientific foundation.

    We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only serve if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and practice. This soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are trying to develop.

    55 0 0 3 11 This entry was posted in Banana republic , CEO compensation , Doomsday scenarios , Economic fundamentals , Guest Post , Income disparity , The destruction of the middle class on February 18, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 69 comments Disturbed Voter , February 18, 2017 at 6:18 am

    System Dynamics of Steve Keene is clearly more useful than equilibrium dogma. He predicted the 2008 crash, though I think he was only lucky .. modeling is always only good for interpolation, never for extrapolation, unless you are lucky enough to only be dealing with linear changes over time.

    Spencer , February 18, 2017 at 7:02 am

    POSTED: Dec 13 2007 06:55 PM |
    The Commerce Department said retail sales in Oct 2007 increased by 1.2% over Oct 2006, & up a huge 6.3% from Nov 2006.
    10/1/2007,,,,,,,-0.47,,,,,,, -0.22 * temporary bottom
    11/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.14,,,,,,, -0.18
    12/1/2007,,,,,,, 0.44,,,,,,,-0.23
    1/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.59,,,,,,, 0.06
    2/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.45,,,,,,, 0.10
    3/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.06,,,,,,, 0.04
    4/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.04,,,,,,, 0.02
    5/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.09,,,,,,, 0.04
    6/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.20,,,,,,, 0.05
    7/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.32,,,,,,, 0.10
    8/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.15,,,,,,, 0.05
    9/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.00,,,,,,, 0.13
    10/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.20,,,,,,, 0.10 * possible recession
    11/1/2008,,,,,,, -0.10,,,,,,, 0.00 * possible recession
    12/1/2008,,,,,,, 0.10,,,,,,, -0.06 * possible recession
    Trajectory as predicted:
    BERNANKE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING. IN DEC. 2007 I COULD.

    Disturbed Voter , February 18, 2017 at 10:39 am

    With a simple spreadsheet projection of flows one can see a lot, without fancy mathematics, using just simple difference equation models, even models that display cyclical behavior. For example, with any internal software development, the quantity of legacy applications increase as they are created, unless retirement of legacy applications is more rapid.

    More often replacement occurs, rather than actual retirement. But retirement of legacy applications is harder than you might think, because of real dependency one can't retire them by fiat. The cost of maintaining legacy applications, isn't zero. So with a fixed software development/maintenance budget, the percentage of expenditures to legacy applications approaches saturation, even without figuring in the cost of replacement (similar to the rolling over of loans vs retiring of loans). Short term maintenance using patches, can only continue for so long, eventually wholesale replacement is necessary.

    Usually the only way to retire a legacy application is to produce a newer and more expensive application, that itself has higher maintenance costs. We dig the problem well deeper. Thus the exponential decay of funds available for new development, or replacement development, not only strangles new initiatives, but even strangles the ability to maintain operations long term. That is why there are still millions of lines of Cobol still working every day.

    There is no free lunch, entropy reigns unless countered by new forms of initiative. Usually the end result is an extension and dilution of the problem, which then resumes decay on a larger scale. This is what happens with the attempt to allay insurance costs by ever larger pools, but there is a limit to the size of the pool, once that limit is reached, the gambit no longer works. Long term problems overwhelm short term solutions.

    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg , February 18, 2017 at 1:28 pm

    That's Joseph Tainters rap if I remember it right.

    Disturbed Voter , February 18, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    An exponentially increasing real economy covers all sins. In absence of that, an exponentially increasing debt economy covers all sins, temporarily because interest has a way of catching up with you. See Greece.

    Mattski , February 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm

    "An exponentially increasing real economy covers all sins." Not if you're Mother Nature–or maybe only for another 10-40 years.

    kimsarah , February 18, 2017 at 9:17 pm

    Banks turned off the money spigot to developers by the start of '07, if I recall. Developers and policy makers knew then there was a recession, but the public was kept in the dark. After the market crash, the consumers were punished instead of the Wall Street looters.

    John , February 19, 2017 at 7:23 am

    The only people who predicted the crisis were a handful of post-Keynesians and Marxists. I'm more familiar with the work of the latter, but for them it wasn't luck. They identified structural problems with the economy that could not be fixed by simply utilizing stabilizers (fiscal/monetary policy) and knew a massive crisis would occur once the bubbles popped and exposed the real economy's underlying weakness. Some believed that this crisis was the result of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and simultaneous downturns in the business cycle and the profit cycle. I think the more convincing view is that low profit rates in the manufacturing sector caused by a global crisis of overproduction/under-utilization of capacity has meant that the real economy has been weak since the 70's and that growth since then has come from asset bubbles (Japanese real estate in the 80's, US stock market in the 90's, US real estate in the 00's). These are problems that no amount of fiscal stimulus can fix in the long run.

    Spencer , February 18, 2017 at 6:58 am

    The author briefly touched on it. It's ALL about the circular flow of savings. And the flow's stopped beginning in 1981, though really in 1966 (also Larry Summer's start of secular strangulation). That's why N-gDp decelerated and there was a 35 year bull market in bonds.

    You have to retain the capacity, like Albert Einstein, to hold two thoughts in your mind simultaneously – "to be puzzled when they conflicted, and to marvel when he could smell an underlying unity". "People like you and me never grow old", he wrote a friend later in life. "We never cease to stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were born".

    The smartest man to walk on earth was Leland Pritchard, Ph.D. Chicago, 1933, Economics, MS, Syracuse, statistics.

    All bank-held savings originate, and are impounded and ensconced, within the commercial banking system. Say what? Yes, the CBs do not loan out existing deposits, saved or otherwise. The CBs always create new money whenever they lend/invest (loans + investments = deposits). Thus bank-held savings are un-used and un-spent. They are lost to both consumption and investment. From the standpoint of an individual bank, the institution is an intermediary (micro-economics), however, from the standpoint of the collective system of member banks (macro-economics), the institution is a deposit taking, money creating, financial institution, DFI.

    The upshot is profound. The welfare of the CBs is dependent upon the welfare of the non-banks (the CB's customers). I.e., money (savings) flowing through the NBs never leaves the CB system. Consequently the expansion of "saved" deposits, in whatever deposit classification, adds nothing to a total commercial bank's liabilities, assets, or earning assets (nor the forms of these earning assets). And the cost of maintaining interest-bearing deposit accounts is greater, dollar for dollar, than the cost of maintaining non-interest-bearing demand deposits. Interest collectively for the commercial banking system, is its' largest expense item (and thus its' size isn't necessarily synonymous with its profitability).

    This is the source of the pervasive error (and our social unrest, e.g., higher murder rates), that characterizes the sui generis Keynesian economics (the Gurley-Shaw thesis), that there is no difference between money and liquid assets.

    Spencer , February 18, 2017 at 7:34 am

    The CBs & NBs have a symbiotic relationship. And so do the have's and have not's. Unless the upper quintile's savings are expeditiously activated, a corrosive degenerative economic impact is subsequently fostered.

    The Golden Era in U.S. economics (Les trente glorieuses) was where democratized pooled savings were expeditiously activated (put back to work) and matched with real-investment, non-inflationary, outlets by the thrifts, MSBs, CUs, and S&Ls (principally investments in long-term residential mortgages). And in the good ol days, we had gov't incentivized, FSLIC safety nets for non-bank conduits. Now we only have FDIC safety nets for the commercial bank clientele (which further retards savings velocity).

    I.e., "risk on" is not higher FDIC insurance coverage (the FDIC formally modified the assessment base in 2011 to include all bank liabilities – which along with the LCR, contracted the E-$ market), not increased Basel bank capital adequacy provisioning (which literally destroys the money stock), not an increased FDIC assessment fee on 1/1/2007, or 4/1/2009, or 4/1/2011, or an increased churn in speculative stock purchases (the transfer of ownership in existing assets).

    digi_owl , February 18, 2017 at 7:39 am

    "uses recent scientific advances – specifically, the physics of flow[2″

    Ye deities

    craazyman , February 18, 2017 at 7:53 am

    This post laudably critiques wealth inequality, but it suffers from the "Newtonia Delusion" that confuses economic thought in general through metaphorical malapropism.

    Physcial systems possess a determinism and time-invariant structure that enables mathematical modelling. Economic systems are cultural artificacts that are not time-invariant. Money is a cultural construct, a form of social imagination and lacks any sort of deterministic attributes. Newtonian metaphors of flow and accumulation restrict analytical illlumination even though they enable quick and simple calculation.

    Money is only one form of a "coordinate system" that enables the measurement of forms of social interaction and cooperation. And it's one-dimensional. This makes it useful given its parsimonious simplicity but it badly restricts complete explanatory power. Physicists know the choice of a coordinate systems influences measurements of phenomenon, and they developed math techniques to neutralize that influence - I think use of tensors in relativity is one example. Economics relies on "money" and resultant ideas of "growth" or 'recessionn" because that's all it knows how to do.

    First, what does "collapse" mean in the context of the post. The word is vague, undefined and subject to a multitude of interpretations - that's not "scientific" at all. "Wealth" is also vague. Presumably it means possession of assets that can be converted into money, so in effect is uses "money" as a sole coordinate basis, and that's reasonable as a form of dimensional reduction, but it fails to measure the implied asset value of any sort of social safety net available to those without assets. That's no rationale for inequality - and anybody wants a job more than a safety net - but it's a logical flaw. Third, the nature of economic structures and cultural relations isn't easily quantifiable or translateable into money; living in a just, fair and inclusive society has an intrinsic value that defies easy measurement through the "money basis". Measuring relies instead on application of a sense of justice and honest sensibility.

    It would be bettter to start analysis with a non-monetary vision of the social rights any citizen of a community should have access to. This form of thinking in fact was the normal and dominant form over most of human history, when people lived in non-monetary tribal structures. And what their implied responsibilities are to gain that accesss. Use that as a time-invariant basis and then introduce money but only as one method of measurement of economic change, there could be other social indicators that might be used as coordinate systems too; use of these could result in very different measurements of ecoonomic phenomeenon than result with the money basiis. That would force the sort of thinking that's required for analytical clarity and ompleteness, but that doesn't exist in economics

    (See I can bang out a comment that doesn't mention jungle boogie butts or hot women! Calling women hot isn't bad, as long as it's respectful and flattering and inclusive. Women in general are hot! What do you want? to live in a world full of gay guys or what? Hahaha. Sorry I can't help it.)

    Steve H. , February 18, 2017 at 11:46 am

    Turchin has been working on proxies, to get some measures of well-being and political instability. One measure of social rights could be the right to live, so life expectancy could be used. Dead is dead and is a hard number. Chicago police historically have a different criteria of what my rights are than I do, so the ecological measures can avoid such definitional fuzziness.

    Another Turchin point relevant to the post is that in-group variance is only meaningful used as a multiplier of in-group selection, and in context of other groups. Extreme inequality does not necessarily cause economic collapse, and coherent elites consistently crush popular revolts. The "the more you have, the more you get" feedback loop can also be seen as a consolidation and success of a certain trait ("rich"), and a re-sort of within-group dynamics (national citizenry) to between-group dynamics (haves & nots).

    (Also, economics does not concern itself with ompleteness, as rational actors cannot be omplete, and an agent who is omplete often withdraws from economic systems.)

    Vedant Desai , February 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    I believe that biggest problem in economics is not the dogma created by money(though its a problem of Course) , but rather biggest problem is lack of a clearly defined goal. "Economic development" ,which is generally termed as goal of economics , is very ambiguous and this ambiguity is creating problems.

    susan the other , February 18, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    Thanks Craazy – that was very coherent. more please.

    UserFriendly , February 18, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    Physcial systems possess a determinism and time-invariant structure that enables mathematical modelling. Economic systems are cultural artificacts that are not time-invariant.

    Very, very few physical systems involve time invariant modeling. Almost every physical system represented by a mathematical model describes how that system changes with time. Otherwise it wouldn't be a very useful model. Few things can be said to be at steady state and even when they are it is usually a simplification, not an outgrowth of time invariance. For example a chemical reaction A + B-> C at rate k1 and C -> A + B at rate k2 is said to be at equilibrium (steady state) when k1=-k2. Even at steady state the reaction is proceeding in both directions and can be thrown out of equilibrium by a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or any host of other factors. After the shock the system will again tend towards an equilibrium but there is no requirement that the new equilibrium be the same as the last one. And all the equations that describe how we went from equilibrium 1 to 2 all involve time. Neoclassical morons obsessed with equilibrium seam to be confused by this and assume time is irrelevant and that full employment will always return.

    Economists are pretty much the only people I see that try to use time invariant models. I think it is a great step forward that economists like Keen have been trying to use the full spectrum of time variant models. The fact that the models are relatable to models of other physical systems is more an outgrowth of calculous than anything else.

    craazyman , February 18, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    I actually was out today doing stuff & plan to go star gazing tonite!

    What I meant is the equations that map the movement of the moon and planets or heat diffusion or chemical reactions or sound propagation worked in November 1887 the same way they'll work in July 2020.

    Of course experimental measurements change through time, depending on the phenomenon being measured. But the natural phenomenon modeled by the equations themselves are time invariant as are the equations, or science wouldn't work. That's why they're called natural laws.

    UserFriendly , February 18, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    Ah. You mean Frame Invariant , not time invariant.

    craazyman , February 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Timeframe invariant! :-)

    H. Alexander Ivey , February 19, 2017 at 3:25 am

    Now wait a minute here. While I appreciate getting my terms correct and such – frame invariant, yeah, that's what I need to know – craazyman is a gift not to be distracted or encouraged wrongly. Yes, his posting clarified the great lie of most economic theory and its teaching and modeling, but his calling is greater than that. "jungle boogie butts or hot women" are rare on this site and should not be lightly diverted. Not that I'm implying that our hostess or commentators of the female persuasion aren't "hot women" or that jungle boogie butts aren't finance, economics, politics, or power, but based on past personal history, if I tried a craazyman, or even a craazyboy, posting, I would be forever marked as hopeless.

    Ruben , February 19, 2017 at 12:36 am

    Physical systems can be time-variant in that way too, it's called a regime shift. We have observed that in several real natural systems. In some cases apparent randomness actually is very complicated but fully deterministic dynamics. Look up "bifurcation diagram". Mathematical analysis can deal with that too.

    Instead of the monetary system and flow, the analysis of human populations, including the production and exchange of the fruits of their labour, should start with the amount of cooperation as the driving variable (or coordinate as you prefer to say)?

    Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

    Sam F , February 18, 2017 at 8:01 am

    Odd that education investment is shown in the article as part of the loop between employment and consumer spending. That is a very slow regenerative path compared with the direct effect of employment, spending, and labor demand.

    The article wastes time extolling circulation merely because it resembles that in natural systems such as tigers, but these do not necessarily serve human interests. It benefits most people simply because they need the inputs and outputs.

    oho , February 18, 2017 at 9:10 am

    >>> But this sounds an awful lot like a new improved version of system dynamics,

    One of the board members from Capital Institute (sounds like the "Human Fund") is from Soros-backed the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

    And Soros loves reflexivity, which is basically repackaged system dynamics.

    not being aluminum foil-y. just interesting how Soros has his fingers in so many pots.

    http://capitalinstitute.org/board/

    oho , February 18, 2017 at 9:12 am

    just institute a progressive tax on bank assets above-say-$700 billion. would literally only affect a handful of banks and do much to rein in the seize of the megabanks.

    oh wait, all these banks are blue state banks (JPM, C, WFC, BAC) and friends w/Schumer, Pelosi and Uncle Warren owns big chunks in WFC and AXP.

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 18, 2017 at 9:41 am

    Capitalism is a balance between supply and demand but we only put in half a system.

    1) Money at the top is mainly investment capital as those at the top can already meet every need, want or whim. It is supply side capital.

    2) Money at bottom is mainly consumption capital and it will be spent on goods and services. It is
    demand side capital.

    Marx noted the class struggle between the two sides that neither can win, to do so destroys the system, either supply or demand will cease to exist.

    The balance has yet to be recognised and we flick between the two sides until everything crashes into the end stops.

    Before the 1930s – Supply Side, Neoclassical Economics

    By the 1920s, productivity has reached a stage where supply exceeds demand and extensive advertising is required to manufacture the demand for the excess supply.

    Taxes are lowered on the wealthy and there is an excess of investment capital which pours into the US stock market. The banks get in on the act and use margin lending to fuel this boom in US stocks.

    There is a shortage of consumption capital and the necessary consumption can only be maintained with debt.

    1929 – Wall Street Crash

    The investment capital was used to blow an asset bubble and not for productive investment, it all ends in tears. The Great Depression is the debt deflation that follows from an economy saturated with debt.

    After the 1930s – Demand Side, Keynesian Economics

    The New Deal starts the turnaround of the US economy and after the Second World War there is the Golden Age of the 1950s and 1960s. Redistributive capitalism looks after the demand side of the equation.

    With the target of full employment, the unions start to abuse their power and by the 1970s we enter into stagflation. There is a shortage of investment capital and demand exceeds supply leading to inflation, there is not enough investment capital to redress the balance.

    After the 1980s – Supply Side, Neoclassical Economics

    Taxes are lowered on the wealthy and there is an excess of investment capital which pours into various different asset classes and the first round of crashes occur in the late 1980s. Leading to an early 1990s recession.

    There is a shortage of consumption capital and the necessary consumption can only be maintained with debt.

    After the early 1990s recession the speculative, investment capital look for another bubble to blow and finds the new dot.com companies.

    Housing booms take off around the world, a speculative bubble for everyone to get involved with and the UK and Japan have already been through their first boom/bust by 1989.

    Wall Street get's into 1920s mode and leverages up the speculative bubble that is occurring there.

    2008 – Wall Street Crash

    The West is laid low and growth is concentrated in the East but they start to use debt to keep things running.

    Even with the Central Banker's best efforts the global economy falls into the new normal of secular stagnation, the debt repayments are a constant drag on the global economy.

    2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%

    All that investment capital with almost nowhere to invest due to the lack of demand.

    We just swing from the supply side, to the demand side and back again until we crash into the end stops.

    We could recognise the system requires a balance between supply and demand.

    Jabawocky , February 18, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    An interesting idea, which adds economics itself to the dynamics of the economic system.

    susan the other , February 18, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    a balance in real time, not over decades with crashes and booms harder to do globally than nationally which is prolly why nationalism is rising it was China imploding c. 2008 that brought the growth of the global economy to a stop, I read somewhere .anyway the growth-forever premise of globalism was nuts. Not even the push for austerity by the neoliberals could make the required adjustments – and not for lack of trying. Yes a new balance (good shoes ;-) is what we need. One that understands the old saying 'form follows function' and create a functioning economy, the scaffold of a new sustainable human society. One in which banking actually follows the economy.

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm

    Bankers should be servants of the real economy and nothing more.

    flow5 , February 19, 2017 at 11:28 am

    It's not a math error, it's an accounting error. It wasn't precipitated as Alan Greenspan pontificated in his book "The Map and the Territory", viz., FDR's Social Security Act. It wasn't Nixon who introduced "indexing". It wasn't because from 1959 to 1966 the federal gov'ts net savings was in a rare surplus. It wasn't because between 1965 & 2012 total gross domestic savings (as a percent of gDp) declined from 22% to 13% (9 percentage points).

    No, the New York Times sobriquet, the "Three-Card Maestro's" error, like all other Keynesian economists, is the macro-economic persuasion that maintains a commercial bank is a financial intermediary (conduit between savers and borrowers matching savings with investment):

    Greenspan: "Much later came the evolution of finance, an increasingly sophisticated system that enabled savers to hold liquid claims (deposits) with banks and other financial intermediaries. Those claims could be invested by banks in in financial instruments that, in turn, represented the net claims against the productivity enhancing tools of a complex economy. Financial intermediation was born"

    Or Ben Bernanke in his book "The Courage to Act": "Money is fungible. One dollar is like any other".

    "I adapted this general idea to show how, by affecting banks' loanable funds, monetary policy could influence the supply of intermediated credit" (Bernanke and Blinder, 1988)."

    For example, although banks and other intermediaries no longer depend exclusively on insured deposits for funding, nondeposit sources of funding are likely to be relatively more expensive than deposits"

    The first channel worked through the banking system By developing expertise in gathering relevant information, as well as by maintaining ongoing relationships with customers, banks and similar intermediaries develop "informational capital."

    "that the failure of financial institutions in the Great Depression increased the cost of financial intermediation and thus hurt borrowers" (Bernanke [1983b]).

    A herding started by William McChesney Martin Jr, that thought "banks actually pick up savings and pass them out the window, that they are intermediaries in the true sense of the word."

    From the standpoint of an individual bank (micro-economics), a bank is an intermediary, however, from the standpoint of the entire economy, the system process (macro-economics), a bank is a deposit taking, money creating, financial institution.

    The promulgation of commercial bank interest rate deregulation (banks introducing liability management, buying their liquidity, instead of following the old fashioned practice of storing their liquidity), i.e., the removal of Reg. Q ceilings (the non-banks were already deregulated until 1966), by the oligarch – the ABA, (public enemy #1), or an increasing proportion of time to transaction deposits liabilities within the DFIs, metastasized stagflation and secular strangulation. Remunerating IBDDs exacerbates this phenomenon (as subpar R-gDp illustrates).

    I.e., every time a commercial bank buys securities from, or makes loans to, the non-bank public it creates new money – deposit liabilities, somewhere in the system. I.e., deposits are the result of lending, and not the other way around. Bank-held savings are un-used and un-spent. They are lost to both consumption and investment. Unless savings are expeditiously activated outside of the system (and all savings originate within the payment's system), thru non-bank conduits, said savings exert a dampening economic impact (destroying saving's velocity & thus AD). I.e., savings flowing thru the non-banks, never leaves the CB system.

    LT , February 19, 2017 at 12:28 am

    I've never believed a country joining the casino economy was a sign of strength.

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 19, 2017 at 5:36 am

    Debt based consumption is always unsustainable, people max. out on debt.

    Greece was happy with debt based consumption until it maxed. out on debt.

    Anything that relies on debt based consumption in the long term can only fail.

    Neoliberalism relies on debt based consumption, it works until it doesn't.

    witters , February 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    "With the target of full employment, the unions start to abuse their power."

    Yeah, sure.

    Actually full employment is experienced by capital as an abuse of its power.

    Here is Kalecki in 1943 explaining beforehand how this generates neoliberalism.

    http://delong.typepad.com/kalecki43.pdf

    tongorad , February 18, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    Yes, I'd like to see what this abuse of union power looked like. Any evidence of this?
    Landlords and bosses were reduced to beggars?

    PhilM , February 18, 2017 at 10:13 am

    Craazyman says it all, but I have to say it too, just for my own mental health.

    How often do social "scientists" have to make this same mistake? Biology is not physics, and human society is biology, and economics is not even close to accurately describing human society, not even the economics part of it.

    Equilibria are achieved, and thermodynamic laws obeyed, on much greater and on much smaller scales than an economy, which is not even a system, per se. Life is anti-entropic, but the universe, the solar system, is not. Communities are not "social networks." Terry Pratchett as usual brings common sense to bear on metaphors like this. Metaphor, you know, using words to convey something like the truth, but not exactly: "Oh, so it's a lie, then."

    Vedant Desai , February 18, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    How economy is not a system?

    Jabawocky , February 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    You have just lost me. Of course economics is a complex system but it is a system nonetheless. Wynne Godley's sectoral balance model is an excellent example of a systems approach to economics, and it's precisely the systems peoperties that attract me to it. MMT is a systems approach by design and easily approached mathematically in that way if desired. I have often considered how I would do it but no doubt there is someone more able to do it than me.

    The bonus of a systems approach would be the possibility of a multitude of possible equilibrium states, some could be fixed, some oscillatory if they include feedback with delay.

    The author could also consider adding futile cycles to her list of cycles, long recognised by biochemists.

    PhilM , February 19, 2017 at 4:10 am

    Craazyman says it above. A "system of pulleys" is a system. A "solar system" is a system. A galaxy, a liter of sodium bicarbonate solution under defined temperature and pressure conditions, these are systems. How is "economics" a system? What is it even a system of? Can you define the parameters of even one of the aspects of economics in some way that does not "leak energy" through every other aspect of human activity, which is not accounted for in some way by the "system" of economics? You can try, but you can't do it. That is why economics is scientific just like astrology: it describes and explains everything, but its only prediction is more jobs for its practitioners.

    Foppe , February 19, 2017 at 6:28 am

    There are "closed" and "open" systems. The behavior of the former can be modeled and understood; the latter, less so (possible only to some extent, and heavily dependent on the intellectual framework that you bring to the table).

    Jabawocky , February 19, 2017 at 7:24 am

    My experience is opposite. Usually in systems approaches most of the detail can be ignored until it becomes important. They do not require knowing the details of the system, instead they try to simplify as far as is practical. Systems approaches attempt to infer micro from gross macro behaviour. This is fundentally opposite to orthodox economics. Godley's model illustrates this well. You don't need to know details about every transaction because parameters for aggregated transactions can be inferred from macro data. You don't need to assume anything about motivations of individuals or firms, but if necessary you could try to infer them.

    PhilM , February 19, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    I clearly need to go and do reading on open systems, because understanding them makes for a richer intellectual life, like poetry, or skimming rocks. For me, the chafing starts when people try to apply a rigorous, mathematically based scientifically accepted reproducible set of theories like those of fluid dynamics (itself by no means fully elaborated) to a field where the described system cannot be even be defined by consensus.

    What, for instance, exactly constitutes an "economic system," or a "system of economics," or an "economy"? Where is the universally accepted definition of something even as basic as money, a definition with scientific reliability, like the definition of an atom in 1930? They just aren't there. You can tell me yours, but it will not be the same as his, or hers. If real scientists behaved that way, there could be no breakthroughs: without a definition, there is nothing even solid enough to break through.

    And by scientific, I just have to fall back on Popper, however old-fashioned that may seem. The propositions of economics, like those of astrology and sociology, and also of human nutrition, and so many other fields flogged by their practitioners, remain unaccompanied by experimental methodologies that result in reliable predictions of reproducible results. They are therefore prolific with unfalsifiable claims. They are, therefore, fraudulent at worst and noisy at best, at a time where the direction of the public discourse is increasingly controlled by central authorities with agendas. A signal among the noise is harder and harder to distinguish without the further impediment of additional publish-or-perish verbiage which will be, more often than not, weaponized by an interest group, if that was not actually the reason for its creation to begin with.

    Systematizers of non-scientific systems are either virtuous "pre-scientists" or frauds. What they claim as the wider social value of their work is the discriminating test. Alchemy and astrology of yore ultimately evolved into chemistry and astronomy, without actually contributing much information as such: but without the need to make magic or gold from powders, alembics, crucibles, and retorts, those tools moved into hands directed by serious, patient minds, where they produced useful and reliable information. (Not that circus entertainment, handwaving, and noise were not great disseminators and motivators of science, and remain so today!)

    Until the dynamics of human society and psychology have been fully described by anthropology, there will not be a "fundamental atomic theory" for Economics to use to underpin its scientific pretensions. It still rests completely on demonstrably untrue assumptions, rules that can be proven not to apply to human behavior. Most recently, the use of the "normal curve" as generally applicable to economic "systems," because of its near-universal employment in statistics, had catastrophic results. This was easily predicted by anyone who has worked with the normal curve; the Central Limit Theorem that underpins the normal curve assumes that the assembled variables are independent, not related functions of each other; and this is obviously not so in any human activity. So much of the use of the normal curve is nothing more than hand-waving hocus-pocus.

    No serious reputable historian would claim any longer to be a scientist, and if he did, he would be no true Scotsman, either. But then, despite what I seem to be doing on these forums, neither would a professionally trained historian think to dictate public policy by appealing to the systematic rigor of his craft.

    Economists today should modestly retreat from their claims to exercise any influence on public policy and direct their efforts elaborating a true science. I believe that may never happen; and I personally fear the unintended consequences that will result from the political use of the kind of knowledge about human motivations and collective activity that will be required to bring it about; maybe less, however, than I fear nuclear war or planetary desolation through aggressive environmental destruction, which may be the alternative outcomes to that kind of advance.

    Bam_Man , February 18, 2017 at 10:16 am

    "Flow Dynamics" of Money Supply are a BIG tell.
    Velocity of MZM Money Supply (Money of Zero Maturity) is falling like a rock and at an ALL-TIME low.

    flow5 , February 19, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Money velocity falls because more and more savings are impounded and ensconced within the payment's system. This started in 1981 with the plateau in deposit financial innovation, the widespread introduction of ATS, NOW, and MMDA accounts. Thus money velocity, formally a monetary offset, started decelerating dropping N-gDp with it (and producing the 35 year bull market in bonds).

    This should be evident with the remuneration of IBDDs beginning in Oct. 2008. I.e., the 1966 S&L credit crunch is the economic paradigm and precursor (lack of funds, not their cost). The "complete evaporation of liquidity" on 8/9/2007 for BNP Paribas, "runs on ABCP money funds", "shortage of safe, liquid, assets", "the funding crunch forced fire sales", "efforts to replace funding that had evaporated in the panic", i.e., non-bank dis-intermediation (an outflow of funds or negative cash flow).

    "Our goal was to increase the supply of short-term funding to the shadow banking system"
    Ben Bernanke, August 10, 2007:

    "Our goal is to provide liquidity not to support asset prices per se in any way. My understanding of the market's problem is that price discovery has been inhibited by the illiquidity of the subprime-related assets that are not trading, and nobody knows what they're worth, and so there's a general freeze-up. The market is not operating in a normal way. The idea of providing liquidity is essentially to give the market some ability to do the appropriate repricing it needs to do and to begin to operate more normally. So it's a question of market functioning, not a question of bailing anybody out."

    I.e., Bankrupt u Bernanke doesn't know a credit from a debit. Bad Ben was solely responsible for the world-wide GR. My "market zinger" forecast of Dec. 2012 foretold of the expiration of unlimited transaction deposit insurance (putting savings back to work), not a "taper tantrum, not budget "sequestration".

    Jesper , February 18, 2017 at 10:17 am

    Seems like a sales-pitch to the 1% trying to convince the 1% that sharing would be good .. I have my doubts about that strategy, the 1% respects power and care very little (if anything at all) for the common good. Use the power of the many in an democracy and force through the needed changes.

    Disturbed Voter , February 18, 2017 at 10:45 am

    Continuing the model of a firm that requires software to function. If the executives of the firm keep taking expensive vacations at the expense of the firm, starving the software development/maintenance department of resources .. then even if there were no other systemic problems, the firm will fail (unless bailed out by a greater entity, as happened in 2008/2009). But in the end, who will be big enough, after we have extended the risk pool to the entire planet, to bail out the planet, from foolish management? I would suggest that the Roman Empire failed because it was unable to overcome either long term systemic trends, nor irresponsible management.

    Robert NYC , February 18, 2017 at 11:11 am

    Inequality is directly correlated to corruption and the U.S. has an exceeding corrupt political economy, hence the extreme inequality. Germany and Japan, to take two prime examples, are part of the same global system and are subject to the same forces, technology, corporate tax arbitrage strategies, etc but neither of them have any where near the inequality of the U.S. It's also worth noting they don't have financial grifters like Mitt Romney and Steven Schwarzman amongst their most esteemed citizens.

    So yes, it is all pretty complicated but at the end of the day the U.S. is one of the most corrupt countries on Earth, certainly the most corrupt of the Western democracies so our problems are no surprise. All this talk about globalization, tax policy, education and technology are all distractions. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the subject of our monetary system which is at the root of the corruption.

    Dick Burkhart , February 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    Right on! – And the corruption is permitted, even encouraged, by the "greed is good" philosophical basis of mainstream economics, and the concentration of both media ownership and campaign finance and lobbying in the hands of the wealthy.

    David , February 18, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Yes, this does deserve some kind of award for expressing a simple idea in a pointlessly complicated way. When I was studying economics in the paleolithic era, we were taught about the "propensity to consume" – in other words the idea that the poorer you were the more of any extra income you would spend as opposed to save. So if you give everyone on the minimum wage 20% more, then they will probably put it straight back into the economy. If you give billionaires 20% more they probably won't. The more widely wealth is spread, the more of it will be spent. This isn't a scientific law, but it's an observation borne out by common sense.

    Gman , February 19, 2017 at 4:06 am

    Hallelujah!

    Even Henry Ford, not exactly known for his altruism or philanthropy, knew it made sense to give his workers a significant rise so that they could afford the cars they were building for him.

    Denis Drew , February 18, 2017 at 11:22 am

    I can't read this whole post this morning - but - my one note tune: 6% labor union density in non-gov work is like 20/10 blood pressure : it starves every other healthy process - even while starving the employee herself.

    Easy way back: if the 1935 Congress had intended (they didn't) to leave any criminal enforcement of NLRA prohibited union busting to individual states - Congress would not have had to change one word of the NLRA. States in fact were left to make any form of collective bargaining (NLRA connected or not) muscling an economic felony. There is no problem of federal preemption when the area has been left blank.

    Nor may the fed force local labor down an impassable road to union organizing - because rules of road unenforceable and unenforced - when a First Amendment protected right is at stake. To state that clearly: the First Amendment is violated when government insists on a mode of action that dismembers freedom of economic association before it starts.

    JEHR , February 18, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Sometimes metaphors bring clarity to a vision and sometimes metaphors befuddle: I am befuddled.

    heresy101 , February 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm

    I'll second that. He is either a scab and Pinkerton employee or provides a confused argument in support of unions?

    Grebo , February 18, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    I think he's saying more unions are needed, but the Federal Government left it up to the states to stop the union busting, which they have declined to do. The Feds can't enforce union membership or collective bargaining as that would violate the first amendment right to free association.

    Denis Drew , February 18, 2017 at 8:50 pm

    Let's try again - maybe it was too compressed

    [cut-and-paste]
    America should feel perfectly free to rebuild labor union density one state at a time - making union busting a felony. Republicans will have no place to hide.

    Suppose the 1935 Congress passed the NLRA(a) intending to leave any criminal sanctions for obstructing union organizing to the states. Might have been because NLRB(b) conducted union elections take place local by local (not nationwide) and Congress could have opined states would deal more efficiently with home conditions - or whatever. What extra words might Congress have needed to add to today's actual bill? Actually, today's identical NLRA wording would have sufficed perfectly.

    Suppose, again, that under the RLA (Railroad Labor Act - covers railroads and airlines, FedEx) - wherein elections are conducted nationally - that Congress desired to forbid states criminalizing the firing of organizers - how could Congress have worded such a preemption (assuming it was constitutionally valid)? Shouldn't matter to us. Congress did not!

    Dick Burkhart , February 18, 2017 at 1:19 pm

    "Renewable energy" is obviously the foundation of Regenerative Economics, simply because energy itself is the foundation of all economics (as well as of all life and of the "active" part of the universe). Yet all the focus on renewable energy in recent years has done little or nothing to stop escalating economic inequality.

    I think a big thing missing from RARE is a theory and program for power. What we need are institutional values and structures that will keep greed under control without much effort. This means not just getting the incentives right, but also the "political revolution" that will be needed to implement them.

    So I think not just about limits-to-growth but about the need for partial universal ownership of all the major sources of wealth, combined with limited stakeholder ownership (fossil fuels, large corporations, etc).

    susan the other , February 18, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    flow is entropy

    HotFlash , February 18, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    We believe Regenerative Economics can provide a unifying framework capable of galvanizing a wide array of reform groups by clarifying the picture of what makes societies healthy. But, this framework will only serve if it is backed by accurate theory and effective measures and practice. This soundness is part of what Capital Institute and RARE are trying to develop.

    Accuracy of analytical method aside, who will implement it? Who can? Not those 8 dudes with 1/2 the world's wealth.

    Hilario , February 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    And what does extreme economic equality lead to?

    witters , February 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    Give me all your income and wealth and let us find out

    Steve Roth , February 19, 2017 at 4:42 am

    Not really a salient issue for us at the moment, is it?

    Carla , February 19, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    Equality–economic or any other kind–cannot be extreme. Equality exists, or it does not.

    Temporarily Sane , February 19, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    That depends on what kind of inequality you're talking about. Men being paid $10/hr and women $8/hr to perform the same task is an example of "binary" inequality. Either everyone is paid the same wage (before the first performance review anyway) or they are not.

    Income inequality is a bit different. If a CEO takes home 20 x more per year than the lowest paid worker in the company income equality is low (way lower than in any modern capitalist economy) if the CEO makes 300 x as much as the lowest paid worker, it is high. Income equality – everyone being paid the same wage regardless of what they're doing to earn it – is not the goal. Rather, it is reducing the gap between the lowest and highest paid members of society.

    Scott , February 18, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    Only jet settesr get the advantages of civilization at its heights. My own partial solution has been an airport nation that advances flying literacy and availability.
    There is an amorphous factor arising out of the defined structure and standard rights afforded travelers & businesses based on a separate airport nation. (I admit this amorphous factor which causes me some presentation problems.)
    No human system will function without a common committed belief in it.
    Airport movement of people & parcels is simpler to make comprehensive.
    For example I have difficulty in attempting to expand passenger service in NC because the corporation Norfolk Southern was given power to inhibit it while getting the advantages of state responsibilities created with a buyout of a rail company state company where it was controlled by shareholders.
    A trick was done on us with the collusion of legislators.
    We can simply say the RR as analogous is a matured industry to the point of immaturity compared to an international airport accommodating both freighters & passenger airliners.
    These things will not directly make an economic theory, but are about economic activity as enabled from basic port theory & the sociology of ports.
    For instance I advise women in nations prone to put them at a disadvantage to put business offices on international airports which tend to be more culturally neutral.

    Chauncey Gardiner , February 19, 2017 at 12:12 am

    Appreciated the author's thought-provoking observations about the effects of extreme concentration of wealth, with its enormous feedback loops and low circulation of money that materially reduce the overall debt servicing capacity of the private sector. But I also felt that she understated the roles that private sector debt growth, central bank monetary policy, asset price speculation and manipulation, and financial fraud have historically played in causing economic collapse.

    Gman , February 19, 2017 at 8:38 am

    Playing Devil's Advocate I suppose you could argue that there is something Darwinian about the way things are nowadays.

    Apex predators are indeed flourishing and in a curious way they are searching further afield and adapting to new 'food sources' as those closer to home become less appealing, less nourishing and less worth the effort of expending the energy trying to exploit, particularly when other tastier morsels are so plentiful and readily available elsewhere.

    Maybe we should just all get with the programme, know our places in the grand scheme of things and resign ourselves to our evolutionary fate?

    ;-)

    LT , February 19, 2017 at 12:10 pm

    If it's Darwinian, it's an example of artificial selection – nothing natural about it.

    Gman , February 19, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    'Life is like a box of chocolates. More and more people know what they're gonna git'

    Darwin's artificial selection.

    St Jacques , February 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    haha, unfortunately it's the apex predator species that is in danger of sudden extinction as its prey declines. Of course the Darwinian analogy doesn't hold up well because Darwinian selection works on all individuals of a species without distinction. A much better analogy is a rigged game.

    Altandmain , February 19, 2017 at 10:09 am

    We basically have an economic system where the very rich steal the productive capacity of the rest of us and add it to their own wealth.

    That is the dirty not so secret truth. As the Spirit Level demonstrates, inequality is as bad for the rich at times as it can be for the rest of us.

    There is also this:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/308419/

    Our problem is that the rich really suck. They are greedy and I would not be surprised if many were psychologically diagnosed with anti social personality disorder. They are without integrity and would fight tooth and nail for their pilfered money.

    But the status quo is like the Congo under Mobut Sese Seko. It is a society build on kleotocracy. Like any such society, it is inherently unstable with money going to a few.

    The late 1960s had problems. The costs of the Vietnamese War, the excess deficit spending, and the dependence on Middle Eastern oil all lead to problems in the 1970s.

    Ruben , February 19, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    "As Paul Samuelson stressed, that assumption [propensity to equilibrium] is necessary for economics to be science, as in mathed up, and the dominance that economists have achieved is due to their scientific appearances and the fact that their mathematical exposition enables them to dismiss lay critics."

    Why? Non-equilibrium is accessible to maths.

    In branching systems such the one imagined for monetary flow in this article, growth in the number of nodes at the terminals (and thus necrosis of excess of nodes) is controlled/limited by the number of terminals of the branching, let's call these capillaries, that can be accommodated inside the volume of the whole versus the number of nodes than can be accommodated inside the whole. Since the total number of capillaries grow at a lower rate than the number of nodes as the volume of the whole increases, growth is limited and excess growth in times of higher volume of the whole suffers necrosis when the volume of the whole shrinks.

    IHTH

    [Feb 19, 2017] Oligarchs dreams about enslavement and complete control of all mankind

    Notable quotes:
    "... Senator John McCain (R- AZ) wants to go to war with Russia and he wants to reshape eastern Europe. McCain and Lindsey Graham were instrumental in the Obama-ordered and sanctioned coup d'état that brought down Ukraine's government and president and installed a U.S. puppet picked by Victoria Nuland. McCain hasn't stopped: he's just been "on hold" to see where he can take footing when the dust settles from the initial Trump shakeup. ..."
    "... Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgment (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democrat government employees/politicians also committed crimes leaking classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job. ..."
    "... "Bill and I chose to Help early" My friends from Haiti tell me how grateful they are. They would like their gold back from your brother though. ..."
    "... Star Trek...the Borg...Not a huge fan of star trek but the show does reveal interesting things...the borg, resistance is futile, etc, but it seems as tho resistance wws not futile, according the the show...the matrix is a good movie too...too many more to mention. I herd an interview with Robert Steele, very interesting...any thoughts? I also came across a christian leaning website who supports Trump, and they are quite smart..trunews.com......not your average piece of shit evangelist...anyway, thats all I got today... ..."
    "... the thing you are missing is that the evil zio loves chaos... and Mericans are falling for it... how else will Soros make money without extreme movements.... when there is chaos they buy shit cheap.... Soros is reading these articles and laughing.... ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    In past articles the fact of a long struggle was mentioned and how it ties in with the current first year of the President's administration. The struggle is not merely to overcome the executive actions and orders of Obama. The true battle is to remove the Marxists from bureaucratic fiefs established by Obama for carryover into the current administration and to deflect and negate their attacks and the attacks of others.

    The circuit court in San Francisco and the Department of Justice have been waging a seesaw-type of battle over the executive order signed by the President. The order's intent is to stem the illegal aliens and foreigners entering the U.S. from Middle Eastern nations either openly hostile to or providing the highest probability (intentionally or indirectly) for terrorists to enter the country. This makes perfect sense, and because it does, one can easily see that only those hell-bent on weakening the U.S. and fostering infiltration would be against the order: those Marxists of the Left labeled as "Democrats" and calling themselves "Progressives."

    They are not alone: they are aided by the Left-Right, which is even worse. The Left-Right are those masquerading as Republican Conservatives, when they are Marxist-Leftists and proponents of Global Governance and the New World Order. They are the Paul Ryans, the Mitch McConnells, and the Newt Gingriches. They are the pseudo-Republican politico's in office presently and in the past who have those CFR slots and are working toward their fantasy: The Utopia of Oligarchs.

    Even if they do not overtly act on behalf of the Marxists, they have been guilty numerous times of enabling the Marxists through the complacency of inactivity.

    They do not simply wish to derail the actions of President Trump: it is a much larger concept than that. They see themselves as "partners" with the Left in the same game: to establish an elitist politico-oligarchic ruling class, broken down into divisions throughout the globe for ethno-cultural manipulation, yet with the same end-state. That goal is the enslavement and complete control of all of mankind with the elitists ensconced as the ruling moneyed class. They see themselves as the educated, sensible minority with tender sensibilities and true humanistic views who must must take a stand in the globalist crusade against the barbaric Neanderthals of the proletariat and populist serfs.

    This new President has taken more action and more rapidly than even President Reagan did when he took office, and that is saying something. Even those globalists playing the part of conservatives are knuckling under in lock step, shivering internally: A President is in the White House that can turn these bedbugs out of the mattress and burn them. This new President quietly and without fanfare made it a point to be there for the SEAL who was killed in Yemen as his casket was brought back home.

    That should speak volumes on the caliber of the man who is in the White House.

    Everything that he does is attacked by the media and disparaged by the leftists. Even the removal of Dodd-Frank (let's remember that was Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank two troglodytes who came up with that one) is sneered at. The executive order to halt the illegals from potential hotbeds of Middle Eastern terrorism is challenged by states packed with liberals and also by the business and industry oligarchs who would rather the U.S. be vulnerable if they can continue to hire "tax-free" day-laborers for less than minimum wage with impunity.

    Senator John McCain (R- AZ) wants to go to war with Russia and he wants to reshape eastern Europe. McCain and Lindsey Graham were instrumental in the Obama-ordered and sanctioned coup d'état that brought down Ukraine's government and president and installed a U.S. puppet picked by Victoria Nuland. McCain hasn't stopped: he's just been "on hold" to see where he can take footing when the dust settles from the initial Trump shakeup.

    In previous articles, it was mentioned how critical this first 6 months to one year-period in office is for the President, namely because of the midterm elections. If the public does not see results, they could very well change the complexion and composition of Congress in 2018 and the Republicans could lose control of either one of or both houses of Congress. The President realizes this, and he is moving swiftly.

    The public will also see that he is doing good things, and that it is the Democrats who are attempting to obstruct his efforts. This will carry the Republicans through in the midterm elections, and thus all legislative efforts by the President will be able to be enacted. It's a tough fight and at times it's uphill, but he started out well, and right and the Democrats won't be able to hold him off.

    xythras -> Squid Viscous , Feb 18, 2017 10:30 PM

    PATRIOTIC SPRING HAS STARTED --

    GUS100CORRINA -> xythras , Feb 18, 2017 10:36 PM

    DEEP STATE = Demonically Controlled Human Beings working together who have made a pact with the DEVIL for POWER, MONEY and INFLUENCE.

    GEORGE SOROS is the POSTER CHILD for the typical DEEP STATE member.

    WernerHeisenberg -> GUS100CORRINA , Feb 18, 2017 10:52 PM

    Even worse than that, they hope they will be rewarded for their service with promotions to become immortal minions of Lucifer after their ancient human bodies finally expire.

    Mustafa Kemal -> GUS100CORRINA , Feb 18, 2017 10:53 PM

    CFR is the brain

    Luc X. Ifer -> Mustafa Kemal , Feb 18, 2017 10:58 PM

    This article practically describes the Communist Soviet bloc.

    wanglee -> Luc X. Ifer , Feb 18, 2017 11:09 PM

    Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even though she has poor judgment (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent (her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration, discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone. Democrat government employees/politicians also committed crimes leaking classified information which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job.

    However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November. Although I have not been a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement" of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans (such as McCain who is too old to make a sound judgement), and those media who donated/endorsed Clinton during presidential election and they'll work for globalist, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of illegal aliens and refugees who will be globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.

    Cashing in: Illegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431 ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261... ) DEA Report Shows Infiltration of Mexican Drug Cartels in Sanctuary Cities ( http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/09/08/dea-report-shows-infiltration-... ) Welfare Discourages Work( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/27/the-science-is-settle... ) Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders's "Free College" Tuition Plan Is All a Lie ( http://www.teenvogue.com/story/clinton-says-sanders-free-tuition-wont-wo... UC Berkeley Chancellor: Hillary Clinton 'Free' College Tuition Plan Won't Happen ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/30/uc-berkeley-chancello... ) Bill Clinton Impeachment Chief Investigator: I'm 'Terrified' of Hillary because we know that there were "People" who "Disappeared" ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/30/exclusive-bil... ) Former FBI Asst. Director Accuses Clintons Of Being A "Crime Family" ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-30/former-fbi-asst-director-accuse... ) FBI boss Comey's 7 most damning lines on Clinton ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-da... ). Aides claiming she "could not use a computer," and didn't know her email password– New FBI docs ( https://www.rt.com/usa/360528-obama-implicated-clinton-email/ ). 23 Shocking Revelations From The FBI's Clinton Email Report ( http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/23-shocking-revelations-from-the-fbis-... ) DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up her email server ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-just... ) Former House Intelligence Chairman: I'm '100 Percent' Sure Hillary's Server Was Hacked ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/former-house-... ) Exclusive - Gen. Mike Flynn: Hillary Clinton's Email Setup Was 'Unbelievable Active Criminal Behavior' ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/11/06/exclusive-gen... ) Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials ( http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-clas... ) Obama lied to the American people about his secret communications with Clinton( http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/president-barack-obama-hillary-email-... ) Former U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft: FBI didn't 'clear' Clinton ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFYQ3Cdp0zQ ) When the Clintons Loved Russia Enough to Sell Them Our Uranium ( http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-cli... ) Wikileaks: Clinton Foundation Chatter with State Dept on Uranium Deal with Russia ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/08/wikileaks-putting-on-... ) Russian officials donated $$$ to Clinton Foundation for Russian military research ( http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/12/16/schweizer-insecure-left-wants-... ) Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-... ) HILLARY CAMPAIGN CHIEF LINKED TO MONEY-LAUNDERING IN RUSSIA ( HTTP://WWW.WND.COM/2016/10/HILLARY-CAMPAIGN-CHIEF-LINKED-TO-MONEY-LAUNDE... ) The largest source of Trump campaign funds is small donors giving under $200 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-fund_us_57fd4556e4... ) How mega-donors helped raise $1 billion for Hillary Clinton ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-mega-donors-helped-raise-1-b... ) Final newspaper endorsement count: Clinton 57, Trump 2 ( http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304606-final-news... ) Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash ( https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hill... ) Judicial Watch Planning to Sue FBI, NSA, CIA for Flynn Records ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/16/judicial-watch-planni... )

    HRClinton -> Squid Viscous , Feb 18, 2017 10:43 PM

    In that case, the choices are: Help, Fight or Stay out of the way.

    Not being the fighting type, Bill and I chose to Help early, so that we're well positioned and so that we can also help like minded people that we bring in. Call it Amway with a twist.

    Mustafa Kemal -> HRClinton , Feb 18, 2017 10:54 PM

    "Bill and I chose to Help early" My friends from Haiti tell me how grateful they are. They would like their gold back from your brother though.

    Normalcy Bias , Feb 18, 2017 10:30 PM

    I don't even want to imagine what's being held over the heads of McCain and Graham.

    deimos178 , Feb 18, 2017 10:35 PM

    As long as he can drag the whiney little bitches McConnell and Ryan over the finish line.

    Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:37 PM

    Zionists already run USA.. so what if they enslave you.... you are already enslaved.... fools... you cannot stop them.....

    Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:39 PM

    the zio power brokers love what is going on ... they LOVE making CHAOS... it's working as planned... blow the whole thing up... you are doing exactly what they wanted

    mvlazysusan , Feb 18, 2017 10:41 PM

    Ending the ponzi money scheme and issuing non-debt based money will go the farthest in returning the power to the people to whom it belongs.

    How about this: Take all that money lent to the big banks at a very low interest back from the banks and lend it to the American people at the same intrest rate.

    coast1 , Feb 18, 2017 10:47 PM

    Star Trek...the Borg...Not a huge fan of star trek but the show does reveal interesting things...the borg, resistance is futile, etc, but it seems as tho resistance wws not futile, according the the show...the matrix is a good movie too...too many more to mention. I herd an interview with Robert Steele, very interesting...any thoughts? I also came across a christian leaning website who supports Trump, and they are quite smart..trunews.com......not your average piece of shit evangelist...anyway, thats all I got today...

    Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:50 PM

    the thing you are missing is that the evil zio loves chaos... and Mericans are falling for it... how else will Soros make money without extreme movements.... when there is chaos they buy shit cheap.... Soros is reading these articles and laughing....

    the more chaos the better for them... when will you learn...

    anticultist , Feb 18, 2017 10:51 PM

    excellent presentation on globalist treason below from Jones. Their mind control technology of racebaiting and gender wars are expansions to their white guilt narrative, to maximize victimhood of ignorant slave zombies chanting for nanny state welfare.

    To entrain them how they are not worthy is maximizing the self-sabotage instinct. This is triggered if the weak federali slave minds are at risk of achieving success they will instead self sabotage themselves with bad behavior and negative instincts, to take themselves out of the situation and out of the game. Because with success comes leadership, philanthropy, accountability, and responsibility, all antithetical to liberal cannibal slaves chanting for more.

    How else would they be poor, ignorant, taxed, and property-less, like communism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PolyMD9lTVE

    max_leering , Feb 18, 2017 10:55 PM

    I think Trump gets it... the "trump" card is the minimal ties by him to special interests... notice I said minimal... that said, he's not as beholden as others before him... take the Boeing deal to provide a new AF1... he bluntly says it's overpriced, so Boeing reduces price... there is no president being owned by big biz in this scenario... and the new media fight is being likened to the media fight of Nixon... Idon't see itt that way... with the advent of numerous alternative news outlets (where I get mine), it's not the same CBS and Walter Cronkite or NBC and David Brinkley 6PM news show where most folks were almost programmed to get any news each day, so it could be tailored to fit a propaganda lean... the east European and Mideast wars are going to take the longest to root out the villians, as the MIC will do anything/everything to not lose one tiny fraction of their power, calling the shots with folks like McCain and Graham... it's going to take at least a year, possibly two, but I agree with the author in that if Trump shows his base he's working hard trying to get the things implemented that he stands for, the Demos are Dead, I tell you, DEAD

    Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 10:59 PM

    the more the swamp is drained... the more Soros laughs... more chaos... more protests, more anarchy, then killings come, total fucking chaos is the goal... then the zios can come in and buy it for a song...

    fall of USSR made how many zios billionaires?

    Order out of chaos..... the more chaos - the more hand wringing....they are excited to get closer to their goal..

    Soros would love to be injected with something to make him younger so he can live to see the collapse of USA, and then come in and snap up all the assets... it would be better than when snapped up property in hungary for a song...

    Joebloinvestor , Feb 18, 2017 11:00 PM

    Trump was never a member of Skull & Bones. That says a lot.

    max_leering -> Joebloinvestor , Feb 18, 2017 11:02 PM

    Odumbo was a member of Skullfucked and Boneheaded

    Squid Viscous -> max_leering , Feb 18, 2017 11:18 PM

    no at Columbia they had "get skulled & bone the jew sluts at Barnard" club...

    obozo swings both ways, so he was an honorary member

    anticultist -> Joebloinvestor , Feb 18, 2017 11:08 PM

    Trump doesn't have a pedophile blackmail "control file" the globalist nightmare

    Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 11:03 PM

    zios campaign the bring in immigrants and terrorists, then zios get you all worked up to hate them, and then fight them..

    they sit back and laugh at the mess they made.... so much fun for them.... and great buying opportunity

    Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 11:09 PM

    there is no goal of 'complete control' that's bullshit... coming from a mental midget..

    the goal is CHAOS.... what ever comes after of course jews will control... naturally.... communism, capitalism... doesn't matter... it's all the same... but they shall be at the top

    Omega_Man , Feb 18, 2017 11:15 PM

    of course Soros and the lot wanted Hillary to win, so she could further erode USA, but really they must be pleased with Trump as President, as it appears they could not have dreamed how much choas a Trump Presidency can bring...

    so things are turning out nicely for the zios... maybe even ahead of schedule with Trump...

    now all they have to do is provoke Trump into doing things to stir things up... should be easy to provoke Trump as he is easily rattled

    How can you possibly understand zios such as Soros if you don't think like him?

    Father ˘hristmas , Feb 18, 2017 11:15 PM

    Huxley was right.

    [Feb 19, 2017] The swamp fights back

    The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people. Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Barbara waters 2 days ago (edited)

    The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained.

    Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law and order.

    [Feb 19, 2017] In Praise of Hypocrisy by Masha Gessen

    Feb 18, 2017 | nyti.ms

    Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.

    One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never tires of pointing out, "We won." In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr. Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory in America. This is a good thing.

    The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?

    The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them. He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.

    Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.

    In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism," the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt.

    This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...

    Hungary's PM Viktor Orban praises Trump for saying countries should put their own interests first
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-nationalist-hungary-pm-viktor-orban-praise-america-first-a7542361.html

    Reply Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 02:26 PM

    ilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

    the dems' deep state have already trodden the Bill of Rights how worse can it get......

    fascism is in the US for 8 years or so. Reply Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM

    [Feb 12, 2017] America Versus the Deep State by James Howard Kunstler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page -- ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds ..."
    "... Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was. ..."
    "... The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. ..."
    "... This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic. ..."
    "... Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself. ..."
    "... perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | kunstler.com

    Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page --

    The bamboozlement of the public is nearly complete. The Deep State has persuaded 80 percent of Americans that all news is propaganda, especially the news emanating from the Deep State's own intel department. They're still shooting for 100 percent. The fakest of all "fake news" stories turns out to be "Russia Hacks Election." It was reported conclusively Saturday on the front page of The New York Times , a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State:

    Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds

    WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.

    You can be sure that this is now the "official" narrative aimed at the history books, sealing the illegitimacy of Trump's election. It was served up with no direct proof, only the repeated "assertions" that it was so. In fact, it's just this repetition of assertions-without-proof that defines propaganda. It can also be interpreted as a declaration of war against an incoming president. The second civil war now takes shape: It begins inside the groaning overgrown apparatus of the government itself. Perhaps after that it spreads to the WalMart parking lots that have become America's new town square. (WalMart sells pitchforks and patio torches.)

    Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was.

    The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. Trump worked a nice piece of ju-jitsu afterward, pretending to accept the finding as briefly and hollowly as possible and promising to "look into the matter" after January 20 th - when he can tear a new asshole in the NSA. I hope he does. This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic.

    Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself.

    What we're actually seeing in the current ceremonial between the incoming Trump and the outgoing Obama is the smoldering wreckage of the Democratic Party (which I'm still unhappily enrolled in), and flames spreading into the Republican party - as idiots such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain beat their war drums against Russia. The suave Mr. Obama is exiting the scene on a low wave of hysteria and the oafish Trump rolls in on the cloudscape above, tweeting his tweets from on high, and perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity.

    ... ... ...

    [Feb 12, 2017] Instead of the endless perception management or strategic communication or psychological operations or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens

    Notable quotes:
    "... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
    "... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
    "... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
    "... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
    "... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
    "... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
    "... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
    "... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : February 10, 2017 at 06:44 AM

    If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control, there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.

    Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's true sovereigns.

    For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.

    If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.

    Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate operating near the Golan Heights.

    The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment views the Middle East.

    But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

    This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's "group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice, there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.

    This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries.

    But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken.

    There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures.

    But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia.

    Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance.

    The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

    In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow. Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.

    So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.

    What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/09/trumps-foreign-policy-at-a-crossroads/

    Julio -> RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 09:04 AM
    Very good analysis.
    The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based on misleading the public.
    RGC -> Julio ... , February 10, 2017 at 09:43 AM
    Yes, Trump seems to want to act directly but he also seems to often be off-target.

    My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons.

    sanjait said in reply to RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 10:56 AM
    I am all for transparency but very strongly opposed to asinine conspiracy theories.
    RGC -> sanjait... , February 10, 2017 at 11:29 AM
    Why should anyone care? Maybe you should actually learn something about a topic before you comment on it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American

    [Feb 12, 2017] Russia Will Not Sell Snowden To Trump; Heres Why Zero Hedge

    Feb 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Alexander Mercouris via TheDuran.com,

    On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.

    The report obviously worried Snowden himself, who tweeted that the report proved that he was not and never had been a Russian agent . That suggests that he took the report seriously.

    Snowden should not be worried, since the report is groundless and is clearly a provocation. To see why it is only necessary to look at the NBC report itself , which makes it clear who is behind it...

    U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a "gift" to President Donald Trump - who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who deserves to be executed.

    That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to "curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.

    (bold italics added)

    It turns out that the story does not originate in Russia. It originates with our old friends the 'anonymous officials' of the US intelligence community.

    One of these officials claims that the story is based on "intelligence" of "Russian conversations" that the US intelligence community has 'gathered since the inauguration". We have no way of knowing at what level these "conversations" took place, assuming they took place at all, but it is inconceivable that the US intelligence community is genuinely informed of discussions within the top level of the Russian leadership – where such a question would be discussed – or if it is that it would publicise the fact by blurting the fact out to NBC.

    The reality is that there is no possibility of the Russians handing Snowden over to the US in order to please Donald Trump . Not only would doing so almost certainly breach Russian law – as Snowden's lawyer, who has denied the whole story , has pointed out – but it contradicts what I personally heard Russian President Putin say at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2014 when the subject of Snowden was brought up, which is that Russia never hands over people like Snowden once they have gained asylum in Russia. That is indeed Russian practice extending far back into the Soviet period, and I can think of no exceptions to it.

    As it happens Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has denied the story in a Facebook post which links it to the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the US intelligence community (about which see more below). Here is how RT translates her post

    Today, US intelligence agencies have stepped up their work, updating two stale stories, 'Russia can gift Snowden to Trump' and 'confirmation found on the details of the scandalous dossier on Trump allegedly collected by an ex-employee of British intelligence.' But it may seem so only to those who do not understand the essence of the game. None of these statements have been made by representatives of the special services, but is information coming from NBC and CNN, citing unnamed sources. The difference is obvious, but only to experts. Yet it is useful for scandalizing the public and maintaining a degree of [public outrage] .

    It is evident that the pressure on the new administration on the part of political opponents within the United States continues, bargaining is going on. And that's why the US foreign policy doctrine has not yet been formed

    It is just possible that US intelligence overheard some gossip in Moscow about the Kremlin handing Snowden over to Donald Trump in order to curry favour with him. The various reports the US intelligence community released during the Clinton leaks hacking scandal show that the US intelligence community is not actually very well informed about what goes on in Moscow or how the Russian government works. In light of that it would not be entirely surprising if someone overheard some gossip about Snowden in Moscow which the US intelligence community is over-interpreting.

    Far more likely however is that – as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in seeking better relations with Russia.

    This story is interesting not because of what it says about what the Russians are going to do to Snowden – which in reality is nothing. Rather it is interesting because it shows the degree to which Snowden continues to be an object of obsession for the US intelligence community.

    The reason for that is that the US intelligence community knows that Snowden is not a Russian spy.

    As Snowden has pointed out, if he really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would be talking about the Russians handing him over. The Russians do not hand their spies over any more than the US does, and if Snowden really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would talking about the Russians handing him over.

    However if Snowden had been a Russian spy his actions would in that case have been simply a Russian intelligence operation of which the US intelligence community was the victim, of which there have been many since the Second World War. Espionage is what the US and Russia routinely do to each other, and there would be nothing remarkable about Snowden in that case.

    It is the fact that Snowden is on the contrary a deeply patriotic American who acted from patriotic motives that has the US intelligence community enraged and alarmed. From their point of view having a patriotic American publicly expose their practices Jason Bourne style is a far greater threat than have a Russian spy penetrate their systems, since because of the far greater publicity it is far more likely to damage them politically.

    This explains the extraordinary feud the US intelligence community has waged against Snowden, which in part explains why it has become so hostile to Russia, the country which has become his protector.

    Mr.Sono -> knukles •Feb 12, 2017 5:41 PM
    Putin is a man of his words and not a little bitch like Obama. I was suprised that fake news was all over zerohedge regarding this topic, but at the end zerohedge confirmed the fake news.
    Giant Meteor -> FreeShitter •Feb 12, 2017 5:35 PM
    One of the smartest plays the deep state could make is allowing him back, make small fuss, and issue a pardon. It would go far in deflating, diffusing the situation, de minimis so to speak. But, I suppose it is more about absolute control, control of the narrative, full spectrum dominance, cautionary tales etc. Pride goeth before the fall (destruction) I believe. Eventually this laundry is going to get sorted and cleaned, one way or the other.
    boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:13 PM
    " as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in seeking better relations with Russia."

    A full pardon from Trump would improve his standing with the American people, IMHO, on both the left and the right.

    HumanMan -> boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:29 PM
    This was my thought when the story broke. Putin can no longer claim to be a protector of human rights if he hands over Snowden...Unless Trump is going to pardon him. As you pointed you, that would be great (politically) for Trump too. Done this way would be a win win for the two and another win for We The People. On top of that, Putin doesn't want to babysit Snowden. I'm sure the Russians would be happy to have a politically expediant way to get the American spy out of their country.
    HRClinton •Feb 12, 2017 5:16 PM
    The Deep State rules, no matter what DJT thinks.

    The roots go deep in my fomer DOS and in the CIA Even in the DOD and Senate. Bill and I know this better than anyone.

    FAKE NEWS:

    On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.

    How many gringos were fooled???--- not many

    shovelhead •Feb 12, 2017 5:37 PM
    Pissgate II...

    Brought to you from your friends at the CIA

    Mr. Crisp •Feb 12, 2017 5:50 PM
    Snowden showed the world that the NSA wasn't just tracking terrorists, they were tracking pretty much everyone, everywhere. He deserves a full pardon.

    [Feb 11, 2017] Welfare is assumed to be based upon real income and not relative income with ones group

    Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Robert C Shelburne : January 23, 2017 at 09:10 AM

    Another good article by Rodrik but a weakness of his analysis is that welfare is assumed to be based upon real income and not relative income with ones "group".

    Most analyses of welfare find that relative income is quite important. Obviously if one assumes that one's reference group is the world, then the problem goes away; but empirically this is not the case.

    Assuming that welfare is strongly affected by relative income with a group which is smaller than the world, then global equality is no longer welfare maximizing.

    Those interested in these issues might be interested in Robert Shelburne, A Utilitarian Welfare Analysis of Trade Liberalization , available as a UN working paper.

    [Feb 09, 2017] How lies work

    Feb 09, 2017 | stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

    Nick Cohen makes a good point : it is not congenital liars that should worry us, but congenital believers – those who fall for the lies of charlatans. We know that many do so: almost half of voters believed the lie that leaving the EU would allow us to spend an extra Ł350m a week on the NHS.

    This poses the question: why do people fall for lies? Here, we can learn from behavioural economics and research (pdf) into criminal fraud. I reckon there are several factors that liars exploit in politics.

    One is wishful thinking. People want to believe there's a simple solution to NHS underfunding (leave the EU!) or to low wages (cut immigration!) just as they want to believe they can get rich quick or make money by taking no risk: Ponzi schemers like Bernie Madoff play upon that last one. The wish is often the father to the belief.

    Relatedly, perhaps, there are lottery-type preferences. People like long-odds bets and pay too much for them: this is why they back longshots (pdf) too much and pay over the odds for speculative shares . To such people, the fact that an offer seems too good to be true is therefore, paradoxically, tempting. A study of fraud by the OFT found :

    Some people viewed responding to a scam as taking a long-odds gamble: they recognised that there was something wrong with the offer, but the size of the possible prize or reward (relative to the initial outlay) induced them to give it a try on the off-chance that it might be genuine.

    There's a particular type that is especially likely to take a long-odds bet: the desperate. Lonely people are vulnerable to the romance scam; gamblers who have lost take big bets to get even; losing teams try "hail Mary" tactics. In like fashion, people who feel like they have lost out in the era of globalization were tempted to vote for Trump and Brexit.

    There's another mechanism here: people are likely to turn to con-men if the alternatives have failed. Werner Troesken shows (pdf) how snake-oil sellers exploited this. They invested a lot in advertising and in product differentiation and so when other products failed they could claim that theirs would work when the others hadn't. I suspect that fund managers use a similar trick: the failure of many to beat the market leads investors simply to trust others rather than tracker funds. The fact that previous policies had failed working people thus encouraged them to try something different – be it Brexit or Trump.

    Yet another trick here is the affinity fraud. We tend to trust people like ourselves, or who at least who look like ourselves. Farage's endless posturing as a "man of the people" – fag and pint in hand, not caring about "political correctness" – laid the basis for people to trust him, just as Bernie Madoff joined all the right clubs to encourage wealthy (often Jewish) folk to trust him. By contrast, the claims from the Treasury and various think-tanks that Brexit would make us poorer came from metropolitan elites who were so different from poorer working class people that they weren't trusted. And in fact the very talk of "liberal elites" carried the subtext: "don't trust them: they're not like you".

    All of these tendencies have been reinforced by another – the fact that, as David Leiser and Zeev Kril have shown , people are bad at making connections in economics. The idea that Brexit would hurt us rested upon tricky connections: between the terms of Brexit and trade rules; from trade rules to actual trade; and from trade to productivity. By contrast, the idea that leaving the EU would save us money was simple and easy to believe.

    Now, I don't say all this merely to be a Remoaner; complaining about liars is like a fish complaining that the water is wet. Instead, I want to point out that it is not sufficient to blame the BBC for not calling out Brexiters' lies. Yes, the BBC disgraced itself during the plebiscite campaign. But we must also understand how voters fall for such mendacity. As Akerlof and Shiller write:

    Voters are phishable in two major ways. First, they are not fully informed; they are information phools. Second, voters are also psychological phools; for example, because they respond to appeals such as lawnmower ads [a candidate seen mowing his own lawn is regarded as a man of the people] ( Phishing for Phools , p 75)

    All this raises a challenge for liberals. Many used to believe the truth would win out over lies in the marketplace for ideas. This is no longer true, if it ever were. Instead, the questions now are: what can we do about this? And what should we do? The two questions might well have different answers. But we can make a start by understanding how lies are sometimes believed. Keith | February 07, 2017 at 04:47 PM

    The marketplace of ideas assumes that the consumers are able and willing to inform themselves and be rational rather than emotional. Clearly this is not true of a lot of voters when confronted by a manipulative press and Tories like Jim with their right wing agenda slyly hidden for the time being.

    Equally as in other areas such as health care shopping around is impossible to do as the consumers lack expert knowledge. Allowing the profit motive to apply to many areas is sure to be a disaster for human welfare as the profit incentive stops the experts using their knowledge for good. Finance is a classic example of the uninformed being repeatedly duped into unsound investments decade after decade. Benjamin Graham describes how in his first job selling Bonds to grannies he came to realise that he was being asked to steal the life savings of pensioners via commissions designed to get a sale of junk paper. Which is why he moved elsewhere to a more ethical line of work. But I am sure leaving the biggest most integrated market in the world where lots of foreigners have helpfully learned our language will surely increase our prosperity....Nigel says so.

    Matthew Moore | February 07, 2017 at 05:37 PM
    There will always be gullible people (/ people constrained by high opportunity cost of information search, as I prefer to think of them)

    And there will always be liars looking to take advantage of them. Like 99% of politicians ever.

    It's very Marxist to wonder how we might change this basic fact of humanity, when the real solution is clear. Don't set up powerful central institutions that rely on coercion: it attracts liars, rewards them, and makes new liars out of honest people.

    Dipper | February 07, 2017 at 07:47 PM
    Oh, we Leavers are being lectured again by our Remainer betters on our stupidity.

    If the statements of the amount we pay to the EU were lies, how come we owe them €50 billion?

    how come no-one ever asks why we have to implement the four freedoms when Germany gets a free pass on the Free market in Services?

    the government announced house building plans today, and no-one asks whether a cause of high house prices and a housing shortage is too much immigration?

    It's not the lies, it's the questions never asked that stand out.

    Dipper | February 07, 2017 at 08:09 PM
    @ Keith - "Tories like Jim"

    I don't read Jim as a Tory. I read him as someone who was a Labour supporter but now just stares in amazement at a group of people who have become EU Federalist fanatics spouting delusional slogans who can never answer a straight question and refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems of democratic accountability.

    How on earth did that happen? How did apparently intelligent people completely lose their critical faculties and join a quasi-religious cult that chants empty slogans and denounces anyone who questions them?

    But I'm sure Jim can speak for himself.

    Ralph Musgrave | February 07, 2017 at 09:45 PM
    Chris missed out the fact that people tend to give others the benefit of the doubt. I.e. if X tells a monster lie, peoples' immediate reaction is: "X is is a bastard". But then on second thoughts they feel ashamed at accusing someone else of being a bastard, and assume it's they themselves that must be wrong.

    Sotto Voce | February 07, 2017 at 10:45 PM
    There is a bit of a danger here of another comment thread being derailed with Brexit mud-slinging. Chris's post isn't really about the pros and cons of Brexit, it just offers a vivid example of the phenomenon under discussion.

    The point Chris makes in the last paragraph is more general and profound. If any and all data/information/evidence/argument is interpreted in partisan fashion and subject to massive confirmation bias so that debates increasingly polarise - or if different sides in debates proffer their own favoured but incompatible versions of the truth - then meaningful dialogue, deliberation and compromise become near impossible. All we get is intolerance, mistrust and greater partisanship. Clearly these are not entirely new issues, but it seems undeniable that there has been a qualitative shift in 'quality' of public debate.

    We appear to be witnessing the US political system at great risk of imploding, as enlightenment values are abandoned and key tenets of liberal democratic practice are wilfully rejected. This is the route to chaos.

    The questions Chris poses are, to my mind at least, the right ones. The very nature of the problem means that the old/favoured remedies are unlikely to be effective. But what can replace them? Is a violent conflagration the only way of shocking the system out of hyper-partisanship and the rejection of the foundational belief that we live in a shared reality (i.e. for people to 'come to their senses')? Or can we back out of this particular cul-de-sac peacefully? You've got to hope so. But, if so, how?

    e | February 07, 2017 at 10:57 PM
    Our upper echelon, i.e. our long-standing middle of the road Labour MPs and commentators, have long been successful in fighting off calls for left leaning policy/talk of how things work (because who knows where this will end) under a guise of fighting off racism/ a closed shop mentality; the routes of least resistance 50s – 00s which should alert us to the ability of the English working class to embrace immigration and avoid base philosophies. But it seems not. Seems to me our shared interest beyond race creed colour and gender continues to be deliberately and systematically no-platformed. What I fail to understand, given the rise of UKIP, is why this is not glaringly obvious; because if you're one of the majority who live life as best you might with as much consideration and tolerance as you can muster where does credence go when an ordinary workers tendency to sound 'populist' is marked up to racism no matter known history...

    aragon | February 07, 2017 at 11:53 PM
    Not again!
    Phishing for Phools. The Political Brain...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/books/review/Brooks-t.html

    "Serious thinkers set to work, and produced a long shelf of books answering this question. Their answers tended to rely on similar themes. First, Democrats lose because they are too intelligent. Their arguments are too complicated for American voters. Second, Democrats lose because they are too tolerant. They refuse to cater to racism and hatred. Finally, Democrats lose because they are not good at the dark art of politics. Republicans, though they are knuckle-dragging simpletons when it comes to policy, are devilishly clever when it comes to electioneering. They have brilliant political consultants like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, who frame issues so fiendishly, they can fool the American people into voting against their own best interests."

    And immigration is about economics. This is Sweden an immigration superpower.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/755997/Sweden-Malmo-military-intervention-no-go-zone-crime-surge

    "Swedish police last year issued a report where it detailed incidents from more than 55 areas which it branded as "no-go zones" as it detailed brutal attacks on police, sexual assaults, children carrying weapons and general turmoil sweeping across the country."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east-countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html

    "A ban was supported by 71 per cent of people in Poland, 65 per cent in Austria, 53 per cent in Germany and 51 per cent in Italy.
    In the UK, 47 per cent supported a ban.
    In no country did more than 32 per cent disagree with a ban."

    aragon | February 08, 2017 at 12:29 AM
    Phishing for Phools

    "It thereby explains a paradox: why, at a time when we are better off than ever before in history, all too many of us are leading lives of quiet desperation."

    http://nfs.sparknotes.com/macbeth/page_162.html

    "Pour the sweet milk of concord into hell,
    Uproar the universal peace, confound
    All unity on earth."

    Human Nature has not changed.

    Guano | February 08, 2017 at 12:42 AM
    The truth is complicated.

    The truth is challenging.

    Tony Holmes | February 08, 2017 at 09:13 AM
    Chris, a bit off the point, but if everyone followed your advice and put money in tracker funds and active funds disappeared, what would happen to the stock market ? Instinct tells me it would become extremely volatile, but instinct is a bad guide...

    gastro george | February 08, 2017 at 09:35 AM
    FFS aragon, that "report" from Sweden is from the Express quoting directly a Swedish fascist.

    reason | February 08, 2017 at 11:29 AM
    Isn't the key point here prospect theory (I've just finished reading Kahneman). People with no good options gamble.

    reason | February 08, 2017 at 11:30 AM
    P.S. The no good options bit is a very good reason for opposing first past the post and the limited options consequence.

    aragon | February 08, 2017 at 11:47 AM
    gasto george

    It is not an extreme story, I don't speak Swedish or have any contact with Sweden. I only read the main stream media which includes the Daily Express.

    As you would expect most of the media does not report on Sweden, unless it has a British angle.
    e.g. Birmingham Boy killed by a hand grenade.
    (I don't know how you can spin Hand Grenade)

    The report originates with the Swedish Police the situation in Malmo is serious and individual police officers like Peter Springare's Facebook post.

    Here is a report from the thelocal.se
    http://www.thelocal.se/20170127/malmo-police-chief-help-us

    "After a wave of violence in Sweden's third city, police boss Stefan Sintéus has appealed to residents in Malmö: "Help us. Help us to tackle the problems. Cooperate with us.""

    Dipper | February 08, 2017 at 12:03 PM
    @ gastro george

    This isn't the first time facists have made inflammatory comments about muslims. Nick Griffin did this and was prosecuted for inciting racial hatred in 2006. The summary of what he said is some way down this article.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tougher-race-laws-likely-after-bnp-pair-cleared-423820.html

    Eleven years later we have this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38845332

    And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with banning "fake news". You have to be really open, transparent and clear and be absolutely sure you are right, otherwise you end up making heroes of facists and stoking the notion that its all a plot to hide the truth from the people. And that is a really bad outcome.

    MPs wrestling with their consciences, loud debates, arguments about the truth ... this is the sound of a properly functioning parliamentary democracy and long may that noise continue.

    Guano | February 08, 2017 at 02:06 PM
    The first two words of the article: Nick Cohen.

    Nick Cohen does make some good points but he himself has a complicated relationship with the truth in some areas. When he isn't talking about congenital liars and congenital believers, he continues to get into a rage about people who opposed the invasion of Iraq. As far as I can see, the invasion of Iraq has been the disaster that some of us feared (because regime change involves putting in place a new regime change, which is very difficult and for which the USA and UK do not have the skills). And, as far as I can see, some of the assumptions made by Nick Cohen in 2002 and 2003 in supporting the invasion (such as the ability of the Iraqi National Congress to create a new regime) were very dubious and their weakness of these assumptions is why the invasion was a failure and has had created an array of other problems.

    In his campaign to avoid a post-truth future, Nick Cohen claims that people like him "are on their own" and he explicitly rejects working with the kind of people who opposed the invasion of Iraq. That's a pity, really, because many people appear to have started their opposition to the invasion because the information provided and the logic used appeared to be dodgy. The period from August 2002 to March 2003 prefigured the Trump/Brexit era for post-truth information and arguments. Nick Cohen would be on stronger ground if he admitted that the invasion of Iraq has not necessarily worked to anyone's advantage.

    I guess that what is going on in Nick Cohen's mind (and I can only guess) is that he has built up a negative image of the type of person who opposed the invasion of Iraq and he has difficulty getting past that image and come to terms with what those people were saying and what has actually happened in Iraq. Thus in between writing articles about the need for truth, Nick Cohen writes expressions of outrage about opponents of the invasion of Iraq as if they had been found to be wrong.

    It seems to be a very extreme example of seeing the messenger and not the message, which is one of the issues with failing to recognise lies.

    gastro george | February 08, 2017 at 02:24 PM
    @aragon

    OK, well I've worked most of my life with Swedes and Norwegians, and have regularly visited Malmo three or four times a year recently, although the last was a bit over a year ago.

    So, yes, immigration is an issue, and the Sweden Democrats (fascists) have been rising in the polls. Malmo itself has some problems in the suburbs.

    But there are no no-go areas. Armed violence has more traditionally been associated with biker-gang turf-related drug wars - otherwise with the far right (see Breivik in Norway) and then, as your last link discusses, lone serial killers.

    Reading anything the Sweden Democrats have to say is the equivalent of believing Wilders in the Netherlands - they are loons.

    Barbara Konstant | February 08, 2017 at 05:36 PM
    Despairing as it seems, our humanity has not reached the necessary level of awareness needed to function peacefully in our world.

    [Feb 08, 2017] The U.S. Tax Code Actually Doesn't 'Soak the Rich'

    Feb 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    The U.S. Tax Code Actually Doesn't "Soak the Rich" : In 2012, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney famously commented that 47 percent of Americans were "dependent on government" because they didn't pay any federal income taxes. He went on to explain that his job was "not to worry about those people."
    Journalists and other public figures often claim that only the rich pay taxes, supporting this with the argument that the rich pay the vast majority of federal income taxes. However, federal income taxes are just one part of the broader tax code. When we consider other types of federal taxes as well as state and local taxes, it becomes clear that the overall tax code isn't extremely progressive – in other words, it doesn't "soak the rich," and it certainly doesn't let the poor off the hook. ...

    pgl : February 08, 2017 at 01:11 PM

    "Journalists and other public figures often claim that only the rich pay taxes, supporting this with the argument that the rich pay the vast majority of federal income taxes. However, federal income taxes are just one part of the broader tax code. When we consider other types of federal taxes as well as state and local taxes, it becomes clear that the overall tax code isn't extremely progressive – in other words, it doesn't "soak the rich," and it certainly doesn't let the poor off the hook."

    Great detail. Mankiw is particularly bad in terms of citing only Federal taxes as if state and local taxation did not exist. He used to have a comment section where a few of us would remind him of the above. I hear that is why he turned off his comment section.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , February 08, 2017 at 01:54 PM
    So you've ruined more than one comment section. Was that the plan or can you just not help yourself?
    Sanjait -> Peter K.... , February 08, 2017 at 02:39 PM
    Look in the mirror, bro.
    pgl -> Sanjait... , February 08, 2017 at 04:23 PM
    He is actually defending Mankiw now? I guess pointing out facts is being rude in PeterK's world.
    Peter K. -> pgl... , February 08, 2017 at 05:47 PM
    Just pointing out how you shut down Mankiw's comment section and are currently trying to shut down Thoma's.

    What do you have against dialogue and debate?

    Jay -> pgl... , February 08, 2017 at 05:13 PM
    And corporations pay no taxes. Well, PGL is only considering federal corporate income taxes when making such a ridiculous statement. Guess what, corporations pay other taxes too!
    Sanjait : , February 08, 2017 at 02:41 PM
    A point that should be well known by now, but worth repeating because many remain unaware. Federal income taxes are but a progressive subset of all taxes, the rest of which, in aggregate, is actually quite regressive.
    pgl -> Sanjait... , February 08, 2017 at 04:24 PM
    Yep! Mankiw tries to deny this. And now PeterK is taking Mankiw's side? OK!
    DrDick -> Sanjait... , February 08, 2017 at 04:28 PM
    And even they are not terribly progressive.
    Jay -> Sanjait... , February 08, 2017 at 05:18 PM
    That FICA is regressive is pretty meaningless, given you can do much more honest analysis by looking at the ROI. OASDI is simply coerced retirement savings along with forced purchase of various insurance.

    But as we saw with ObamaCare, progtards will take every opportunity to include in legislation completely unrelated clauses that act as income redistribution - see the 3% income tax. Then again, to some morons (PGL, DrDonk and EMichael included) 100% of you income is owned by the government and there is a certain percentage that they leave you have. Looking at it from a "tax rate" perspective is wrong-headed and backwards.

    Sanjait -> Jay... , February 08, 2017 at 05:29 PM
    That is a great example ... of the borderline incoherent and histrionic way conservatives often talk about policy issues when they are trying to act intellectual.
    JF : , February 08, 2017 at 03:59 PM
    I commented on Dean Baker's blog and on this CEPR article too.

    The gust is to get people to discuss public finance in net worth terms and not just by income taxation type or just by the transactional flows in a 12 month period.

    The headline they chose fir this article would have been more informative.

    Just think, looking at the top 1percent, what is their contribution to public finance compared to their net worth. Compare this to the medium, or just about any other strata and I think many might be better educated.

    DrDick : , February 08, 2017 at 04:30 PM
    More shocking news that has been available for decades, but which conservatives and the media (redundant?) studiously ignore.

    [Feb 07, 2017] Don't Side With Neoliberalism in Opposing Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Les Leopold, the director of the Labor Institute, who is currently working with unions and community organizations to build the educational infrastructure for a new anti-Wall Street movement. His new book Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice serves as a text for this campaign. All proceeds go to support these educational efforts. Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... Thin Reed? Authoritarian rule for the oligarchs ..."
    "... Most manufacturing jobs are lost via automation, not outsourcing. ..."
    "... wasn't ..."
    Feb 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on February 6, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. As reader John Z pointed out, the policy program described in this post is very much in synch with the recommendations Lambert has been making. One small point of divergence is that Leopold reinforces the idea that taxes fund Federal spending. Taxes serve to create incentives, and since income inequality is highly correlated with many bad social outcomes, including more violence and shorter lifespans even for the rich, progressive taxation is key to having a society function well. However, he does get right (as very few do) that the purpose of a transaction tax is to discourage the activity being taxed, rather than raise money (aside from the MMT issue, the tax would shrink the level of transactions in question, making it not very productive in apparent revenue terms).

    By Les Leopold, the director of the Labor Institute, who is currently working with unions and community organizations to build the educational infrastructure for a new anti-Wall Street movement. His new book Runaway Inequality: An Activist's Guide to Economic Justice serves as a text for this campaign. All proceeds go to support these educational efforts. Originally published at Alternet

    During the Bernie Sanders campaign I heard a high-level official give a powerful speech blasting the Trans-Pacific Partnership Act for the harm it would bring to workers, environmentalists and to all who cared about protecting democracy.

    Donald Trump now has signed an executive order pulling out of the TPP negotiations.

    Is this a victory or a defeat for the tens of thousands of progressives who campaigned to kill the TPP?

    On the same day Trump killed the TPP, he met with corporate executives saying he would cut taxes and regulations to spur business development. But he also warned that "a company that wants to fire all of the people in the United States and build some factories someplace else and think the product is going to flow across the border, that is not going to happen." He said he would use "a substantial border tax" to stop those practices.

    Is this a victory or a defeat for workers and unions who for three decades have been begging politicians to stop the outsourcing of decent middle-class jobs?

    Breaking the Spell of Neoliberalism

    Our answers may be clouded by four decades of the neoliberal catechism-tax cuts on the wealthy, Wall Street deregulation, privatization of public services and "free" trade. Politicians, pundits and overpaid economists long ago concluded that such policies will encourage a "better business climate," which in turn will lead to all boats rising. Instead those very same policies led to a massive financial crash, runaway inequality and a revolt against neoliberalism which fueled both the Sanders and Trump insurgencies. (See enough facts to make you nauseous.)

    This ideology is so pervasive that today no one is shocked or surprised to see Democratic governors on TV ads trying to lure business to their states by promising decades of tax holidays. No one gags when politicians lavish enormous tax gifts on corporations-even hedge funds-in order to keep jobs from leaving their states .

    Similarly, we have grown accustomed to the neoliberal notion that we should go deeply into debt in order to gain access to higher education. Free higher education, which was the norm in New York and California until the 1970s, was "unrealistic" until Sanders rekindled the idea.

    More troubling still, elites propagated the idea that public goods should not be free and available to all via progressive taxation. Rather public goods were denigrated and then offered up for privatization. Even civil rights icon Representative John Lewis used the neoliberal framework to attack Bernie Sanders' call for free higher education and universal health care: "I think it's the wrong message to send to any group. There's not anything free in America. We all have to pay for something. Education is not free. Health care is not free. Food is not free. Water is not free. I think it's very misleading to say to the American people, we're going to give you something free."

    Obama/Clinton Didn't, Trump did

    Ironically, while Lewis is defending neoliberalism, Trump actually is attacking two of its foundational elements-free trade and unlimited capital mobility. Not only is Trump violating neoliberal theory, he also is clashing with the most basic way Wall Street cannibalizes us. Without the free movement of capital, assisted by trade deals, financial elites and their corporate partners would not be able to slash labor costs, destroy unions and siphon off wealth into their own pockets.

    In particular, we should be extremely worried about how Trump is approaching the loss of manufacturing jobs. The neoliberal fog should not cause us to miss the obvious: presidents Obama and Clinton did absolutely nothing to stop the hemorrhaging of middle-class manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries. (U.S. manufacturing fell from 20.1 percent of all jobs in 1980 to only 8.8 percent by 2013.) Not only did Obama and Clinton fail to stop even one factory from moving away, but they truly believed that capital mobility and free trade were good for America and the world. In other words they had sipped plenty of the neoliberal Kool-Aid.

    Meanwhile, Trump is all in. He is saying that jobs in the U.S. are more important than the long-run benefits of capital mobility and TPP/NAFTA agreements. If he keeps bashing corporations for moving jobs abroad and if he manages to ignite even a mini U.S. manufacturing jobs boom, Trump could be with us for eight long years.

    But What About the Poor in Other Countries?

    To many progressives, saving American jobs sounds jingoistic and "protectionism" is a bad word. Isn't global trade helping the poor become less so around the world? Isn't it selfish only to protect American jobs? Isn't it more moral to share scarce manufacturing jobs with the poor in Mexico and Asia? After all, even if a plant closes in the Rust Belt, service sector jobs can be found at wages that still are far higher than what the poor can hope for in low-wage countries.

    You can be sure corporations will be playing this tune if Trump tightens the screws on capital mobility.

    These arguments however have little to do with how the world actually functions.

    No, it's not possible to make a credible progressive case for outsourcing your neighbor's job

    What Do We Do?

    The progressive instinct, and rightfully so, is to trash Trump. If he's for it, we must be against it. When it comes to immigration, civil rights, abortion, freedom of the press and many, many other issues, that's a sound strategy.

    But trashing Trump for saving jobs in the U.S. is suicidal.

    In opposing Trump, we must not slip into defending neoliberalism. It's not okay for corporations to pack up and leave. We should have some control over our economic lives and not leave all the crucial decisions to Wall Street and their corporate puppets. Trade deals are bad deals unless they enforce the highest health, safety, environmental and labor standards. And those measures must be enforceable by all the parties. The race to the bottom is real and must stop.

    In the U.S. We Should Be Mobilizing the Following Areas:

    1. Organize the outsourced : We should identify and organize all those at risk from off-shoring. We need to make sure Trump and Congress hear from these actual and potential victims. Trump needs to be reminded each and every day that there are millions of jobs he must protect. At the same time we should be rounding up support for the Sanders bill to stop off-shoring .

    2. Resist: Trump has made it clear to corporate America that in exchange for job creation in the U.S. he will cut their taxes and regulations. We should demand that all tax "reforms" include a new financial speculation tax ( Robin Hood Tax ) on Wall Street to slow down their insatiable greed. Also, we need to fight tooth and nail against any weakening of workplace health, safety and environmental regulations. We have to destroy the Faustian bargain where jobs are protected but the workers and the communities are poisoned.

    3. Connect: More than 3 million people protested against Trump. But it is doubtful that dislocated workers and those facing outsourcing were involved in these marches. That's because the progressive movement has gotten too comfortable with issue silos that often exclude these kinds of working-class issues. That has to change in a hurry. We need to reach out to all workers in danger of off-shoring-blue and white collar alike.

    4. Expand: Many key issues-from having the largest prison population in the world to having one the lowest life-spans-are connected through runaway inequality . Outsourcing is deeply connected to the driving force behind runaway inequality-a rapacious Wall Street and its constant pressure for higher returns. We need to broaden the outsourcing issue to include stock buybacks and the other techniques used by Wall Street to strip-mine our jobs and our communities. It's time for a broad-based common agenda that includes a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street, free higher education, Medicare for All, an end to outsourcing, fair trade and a guaranteed job at a living wage for all those willing and able.

    5. Educate: In order to build a sustained progressive movement we will need to develop a systematic educational campaign to counter neoliberal ideology. We need reading groups, study groups, formal classes, conferences, articles and more to undermine this pernicious ideology. Some of us are fortunate to be part of new train-the-trainer programs all over the country. We need to expand them so that we can field thousands of educators to carry this message.

    Yes, all of this is very difficult, especially when it seems like a madman is running the country. It is far easier to resist than to tear apart neoliberalism. But we have to try. We need to recapture the job outsourcing issue and rekindle the flames that ignited Occupy Wall Street and the Sanders campaign.

    34 0 191 0 2 Gerard Pierce , February 6, 2017 at 3:28 am

    Les Leopold explained some of his beliefs on the Smirking Chimp. I made a comment to that article that I think should be repeated here ==>

    At the moment, it's hopeless because we do not have a platform.

    Most of the supposed liberals out there cannot defend welfare of any kind, cannot defend Social Security and cannot defend most of what they supposedly stand for in any kind of intelligent way.

    There are circumstances where "welfare" is a moral necessity. There are also circumstances where you tell the claimants to get a job. Sometimes you help them to get that job.

    It's necessary to be able to tell the difference and to be able to explain the difference.

    Too many supposed liberals do not understand how the labor movement became corrupt enough that "right to work" looked good to people who were paying dues and getting little back.

    If you do not understand your own "liberal" beliefs, some uneducated red-state buffoon will make you look like the bad guy

    You not only need to understand your own beliefs, but you need to be able to debate them with other wanna-be liberals until you have a platform that means something.

    flora , February 6, 2017 at 3:41 am

    "we do not have a platform ."

    The Sanders' campaign platform works for me.

    BeliTsari , February 6, 2017 at 6:30 am

    Yep, everything Trump will do to bait Liberal "resistance," they will eagerly fall for. It leaves a LOT of wiggle room for a movement to get between DC's Kleptocrats and Trump's supposed constituency (victims? marks?) about to lose their jobs, homes, equity, retirements & kids to imperialistic wars. If there's a Left in this country, it simply HAS to be more than white kids on TV, in black face masks we need to dodge Trump's trolling and fight unremittingly FOR living wages, job safety, healthcare, upwards mobility & AGAINST a predatory FIRE sector, ALEC kleptocracy & their media's 24/7 reality infomercial. For way too long, the whole good cop/ bad cop scam has been Yuppie liberals vs Oligarch's running dogs, we've tried to live off any chunks that'd trickle down through the maelstrom above our heads, to which we were not invited

    nycTerrierist , February 6, 2017 at 9:17 am

    Same here.

    Katharine , February 6, 2017 at 10:04 am

    +1

    Mel , February 6, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    Quite. No reason Sanders' platform can't be used. There's also a 5-point platform right in plain sight at the end of Leopold's article.
    Some people seem to have this urge to outsource the platform to somebody else - the Democrat Party, or maybe others. No. No need to go elsewhere. There's two platforms right here. Use them.

    b1daly , February 6, 2017 at 5:53 am

    The problem is that economic systems are complex, emergent phenomena. They influenced by culture, chance, ideas, tribal instincts, technology (including financial technology), geography, tradition, the environment, human nature, migration, religion, and on and on.

    This notion that something as complex as human society can be analyzed under an intellectual construct, whether neo-liberalism, socialism, or Rastafarianism defies common sense. Centuries of intense theorizing by some very smart people have led to an understanding of parts of social systems. But, for example, economists disagree profoundly on basic aspects of macroeconomics.

    Neo-liberalism is not even a well defined concept. I don't know of any politician in the US who declare themselves "neo-liberal." Read the Wikipedia article to see just how poorly this concept is defined.

    Among some self-imagined progressives it's become a perjorative term to apply to leaders who they disagree with. IMO, politicians do not govern according to abstract concepts. The honest ones are simply trying to govern, in the context of the society they live in. At times, historically unique situations arise, and political leaders are stumped for solutions. At such a time, some kind of think tank might propose their pet theory to be considered as a factor in making decisions (the "neo-cons" had their chance in the build up to the Iraq war).

    I want Trumps ability to wreak havoc on the economy and civil infrastructure minimized, and him gone as President as soon as possible. This is not going to be easy. If, at the same time, think you can throw in the reform of global economic structures, and succeed, you're delusional.

    FWIW, to the extent that policians like Chuck Shumer or Hilary Clinton are influenced by neo-liberal ideas, it is at the level of ideas. People can change their mind, or have it changed, on things like this. Quickly. In contrast to something like pro-Zionist policies, to which a polician might have a deeper attachment, very resistant to change.

    Outis Philalithopoulos , February 6, 2017 at 11:09 am

    I was a bit confused by this comment.

    The first two paragraphs are making a broad sort of argument, which if taken with its full force seems to mean that any attempt to use theoretical generalizations to understand the world is oversimplifying and therefore questionable.

    The third and fourth paragraphs take issue more specifically with the term "neoliberalism."

    However, the fifth paragraph seems to imply that anti-neoliberalism involves "reform of global economic structures," and therefore maybe isn't as poorly defined as the previous paragraphs would have led one to assume.

    Meanwhile, the sixth paragraph undercuts the fifth. The fifth implies that opposing Trump is so important that we should temporarily abandon any attempt to move the discourse on the overall economic direction of the country or the world. The reason given is that moving said discourse is supposed to be a herculean, nearly impossible task. The sixth paragraph, instead, suggests that Schumer and HRC can have their mind changed "quickly" on these sorts of issues, and so maybe the overall project isn't so infeasible after all.

    Vatch , February 6, 2017 at 11:55 am

    "FWIW, to the extent that policians like Chuck Shumer or Hilary Clinton are influenced by neo-liberal ideas, it is at the level of ideas."

    I'm skeptical about this. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are influenced by neo-liberal ideas at the level of massive donations to their campaign committees or family foundation.

    jrs , February 6, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    If you just get Trump gone, another Trump or worse will be produced in a decade or so (never mind Pence in the meantime, that we could endure, I'm focusing longer term). An awful system, that makes everyone poor (mass impoverishment), stupid, and exhausted, produces awful results in terms of governance (money in politics does not help of course).

    old flame , February 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    I always took neo-liberalism to mean world domination by banks FIRE sector and neoconservatism by the military and their suppliers and also oil which greases the military wheels. Farms fall into the latter I guess for the defense of the "landed gentry". Watched the farm reports lately and they are quite upset by the non-passage of the TPP which would have given them higher price supports. All of it is ruled by multi-nationals' money and clout so there is overlap.

    flora , February 6, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    Don't equate the giant corporate agri-biz sector – Monsanto, ADM, IBP, et al – with small family farms. Factory farms might be for TPP. The small family farm, the independent farmer, not so much.

    see, for example:
    http://www.sraproject.org/2014/11/unfair-trade-ttp-and-ttip-vs-family-farms/

    flora , February 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    adding: Wall St speculates in grain and farm/food commodities. Wall St isn't happy with the demise of TTP. This from a few years back, but still relevant.

    " Futures markets traditionally included two kinds of players. On one side were the farmers, the millers, and the warehousemen, market players who have a real, physical stake in wheat .

    "On the other side is the speculator. The speculator neither produces nor consumes corn or soy or wheat, and wouldn't have a place to put the 20 tons of cereal he might buy at any given moment if ever it were delivered. Speculators make money through traditional market behavior, the arbitrage of buying low and selling high. And the physical stakeholders in grain futures have as a general rule welcomed traditional speculators to their market, for their endless stream of buy and sell orders gives the market its liquidity and provides bona fide hedgers a way to manage risk by allowing them to sell and buy just as they pleased.

    "But Goldman's index perverted the symmetry of this system. The structure of the GSCI paid no heed to the centuries-old buy-sell/sell-buy patterns. This newfangled derivative product was "long only," which meant the product was constructed to buy commodities, and only buy. At the bottom of this "long-only" strategy lay an intent to transform an investment in commodities (previously the purview of specialists) into something that looked a great deal like an investment in a stock - the kind of asset class wherein anyone could park their money and let it accrue for decades (along the lines of General Electric or Apple). Once the commodity market had been made to look more like the stock market, bankers could expect new influxes of ready cash. But the long-only strategy possessed a flaw, at least for those of us who eat. The GSCI did not include a mechanism to sell or "short" a commodity. "

    More neoliberalism in action. It doesn't benefit either the small farmer or the person buying groceries.

    flora , February 6, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    oh, link:
    Foreign Policy
    How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis, 2011
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/27/how-goldman-sachs-created-the-food-crisis/

    Wall St. certainly wants the TTP.

    Brad , February 6, 2017 at 1:20 pm

    Either reality is an unknowable fog, or it isn't. I say its knowable, however complex.

    PH , February 6, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    I agree many people here get caught up in labels. I think there is value in iconoclasm, but ultimately we have to take practical actions if we want to avoid trouble. Or, at least, avoid the worst trouble.

    Many who comment do not seem to take seriously the danger of right wing fanaticism. I am not sure what would convince them.

    Unfortunately, we may find out someday.

    that guy , February 6, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    You might be right. I certainly don't take right wing fanaticism seriously. Moreover I don't think it should be taken seriously, and unless things seriously changed recently, I live in a state that, statistically, has a lot of right wing fanatics.

    They're not organized, they don't have a message that truly appeals, they don't have messengers with mass appeal, there's nothing there anyone can build on. Moreover, anti-immigrant sentiment comes and goes. In the 1840's we were having riots and people were beating Irishmen in the street because the economy sucked. But when things don't suck so bad economically, that evaporates like the morning fog.

    Until right wing fanaticism can look like anything other than some angry guy with too many tattoos shouting angry slogans, or some weird dude who wants to actually create White America that srsly nobody listens to, y'know, until there's some unifying figurehead who can take it further and make it sensible-sounding and mainstream to the folks at home who work a 9-to-5, it's not even worth worrying about. I'm more worried about left wing extremists who show up in huge mobs and cause property damage, personally.

    Altandmain , February 6, 2017 at 10:43 am

    They are liberals, not left wing people.

    By that I mean, they want neoliberal econoimcs with a socially left wing platform. No wonder they hate the left and supported Clinton so much. They want the status quo. Many are safely in the upper middle class, as the comments on the Women's March in Washington DC have revealed. They will never have to deal with the consequences of neoliberalism.

    The Sanders base by contrast wants left wing economics and socially.

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 6, 2017 at 11:45 am

    The neoliberals don't even want left wing social identity progress. They just use it as a tool to capture voters. Team Blue types did jack to advance social issues until they were forced too or were simply bypassed. Obama's "personal endorsement" of gay marriage was covered by his support of state rights.

    Allegorio , February 6, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    Remember "Don't ask, don't tell."? Oh so socially liberal!

    jrs , February 6, 2017 at 12:25 pm

    Is anyone all that safely in the middle class these days? Even if they have a nice middle class job, so much that they don't have to worry about age discrimination as they get older? I don't think so. So much that even if they have a nice plum insurance plan at work, they never have to worry about healthcare for themselves or their loved ones? I'm not so sure

    But sure it's not as immediate a threat, doesn't have the immediacy of say facing immediate eviction for the lack of a rent payment or something.

    Michael Berger , February 6, 2017 at 4:44 am

    What appeals to me most is the recognition here (item 3.) of the same concern for visa holders being locked out of entering the country needing to be shown to the laboring class already in the country.

    For those laborers, seeing a few hundred (or goodness gracious, a few thousand) people protesting another production line being shipped off is better "messaging" than anything our ruling class will ever manage to conceive.

    Seriously, I can think of no better image than social justice warriors standing up for workers desperate enough to vote Trump (or resigned enough to not vote at all).

    There are potential friendships – or allyships if you prefer – to be created that could do wonders for much beyond economic concerns.

    John Rose , February 6, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    This has been my position from the early days of the Tea Party movement when I couldn't understand why the Democratic Party immediately sent organizers to help them with both organization and more importantly consciousness-raising.

    Kramer , February 6, 2017 at 5:12 am

    My problem is that I'm in a Red state. Democrats don't win elections here. I need a political organization that can give me the best possible republican. This would look like America first economics to protect American jobs (there is a huge appetite for this among the Republican voters I talk to.) It would mean accepting conservative social positions. The democratic party might be able to this but it would require one hell of a make over.

    b1daly , February 6, 2017 at 6:08 am

    It would, but it might be doable. A lot of the divide in American politics is around "the culture wars." I think people can adopt new ideas, and ways of looking at things, if they get that "tribal sanction."

    This is just arm chair theorizing, but one of the big hang ups is that cultural difference is interwoven with historical precedents that operated at a more substantive, fundamental level in the society. For example, the theories of white supremacy were used to justify the appalling institution of slavery in the US. At that time, this enabled the dominant culture to benefit at the expense of the exploited.

    But when cultural conditions change, such that economic systems like slavery are no longer operative, the ideas of white supremacy can live on as simply cultural identity.

    For all the problems of our society, we have made progress, and the overt, legal racism that existed just 50 years ago has been minimized. So perhaps people interested in social justice can relax the hyper-vigilant, hyper-accusatory attitudes of political correctness, to make common cause with populations they have common interests with.

    When social justice activists use the label of "racist" as a badge of shame on someone who transgresses whatever social line, it tends to cause hurt feelings. And accusations of reverse racism. Sigh. It could be different.

    Terry Humphrey , February 6, 2017 at 11:07 am

    They divide culturally because the social and economic is too complex to put on a sign.

    Allegorio , February 6, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    The Kulture Wars were specifically designed to put economic and Class issues on the back burner, Divide and Rule. What is the point of Lady Gaga waving her pussy in our faces at the super bowl, but to drive the socially conservative working class into the Republican party. Frankly the issue of who sleeps with who, who marries who and who has a baby, is done , covered by the assertion of privacy protection by the constitution. In any case, economic justice should take precedence. Time to move on from socially divisive issues.

    Booqueefius , February 6, 2017 at 4:22 pm

    Love your line about Lady Gaga. It is as if the powers that be understand completely the "backfire effect" and deploy it consciously to their advantage.

    Steve H. , February 6, 2017 at 8:41 am

    I completely disagree. While party organizations in red states may have little impact on those elected from their state, a hostile takeover of a state party can have real impact in terms of control of the national organization.

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 6, 2017 at 9:49 am

    Democratic Parties in red states especially are interested in keeping their invitations to Inaugural balls and holding Jefferson-Jackson (one would think these would have been renamed by now given how totes woke Team Blue types are, sarc) dinners. Who knows what could happen if they cared about results?

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 6, 2017 at 9:34 am

    I disagree. "Good Democrats" can win. People respect people who fight for their values or seem to fight for those values more than say a Hillary. The messaging of Hillary as a defender for women and children wasn't an accident.

    The problem for the "deplorables" in regards to Team Blue is the neo liberals treat their concerns with contempt and have a recent history of betrayal.

    It might take a while, but Virginia's fifth congressional district is the largest district by area east of the Mississippi. It's bigger than New Jersey and a relatively good Democrat (probably not the most pro choice person) won in 2008 against a Republican who won by huge numbers every years. That win didn't start in early 2008. It started in 2001 with a couple of sacrificial lambs to build operations to register voters, making sure the blue precpincts were registered and to go into the precincts that should be blue believed they can win.

    I believe people will make good choices when presented with options, but putting up a non entity with cash who bemoans partisanship especially those "tax and spend liberals" is why Democrats fail. How did Alan Grayson get into Congress despite running in a district that went for Bush/Cheney twice while an adjacent district that went for Gore and Kerry keeps sending Republicans to Congress? The answer is people respect when they aren't being pondered too, and that is all Clinton Inc knows how to do.

    John Rose , February 6, 2017 at 12:47 pm

    This is probably how it needs to be done, district by district. Was this entirely home-grown or was there outside help from move-on or other groups?

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 6, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    Entirely home grown for all intents and purposes. Lynchburg produced a fair amount of volunteers and money despite not being in the actual district.

    Dean's 50th the strategy didn't come from no where. The Internet existed before Facebook, and people have long memories of Democrats that did organization before 1994 (gee, I wonder who was in charge of Team Blue) and the destruction of the then permanent Democratic majority. People discussed this all over. Admittedly, I didn't entirely buy it until Kaine thumped a well liked Republican in 2005 running up the vote tally in areas where people had been organizing.

    There is a reason why Clinton Inc is despised by otherwise seemingly, sensible Democratic types. The Clintons under perform because they run childish goldilocks campaigns. In 1992, Bill mustered 43% of the vote against 41 and a guy who basically wanted to bring back prohibition.

    Philip Martin , February 6, 2017 at 9:26 pm

    Thanks for bringIng up Dr. Dean's 50 state strategy. What the heck happened to that? I'm convinced that the strategy was a good part of Obama's victory in 2008. In Kansas, the Dems took a seat from the Republicans that year, and won Indiana and North Carolina. Lost Missouri by only 4000 votes. We could compete in these states and others (Arizona, Texas, Georgia) if the state Democratic parties would arouse themselves and do a bit of listening to people in their state.

    ArkansasAngie , February 6, 2017 at 7:01 am

    No more wedgies.

    We are so wedged that we cannot form coalitions.

    The Fallacy of the false dilemma.

    Example we are wedged on refugees. How about we stop bombing Syria so that the urgency of refugees is reduced.

    PH , February 6, 2017 at 7:12 am

    Not sure study groups are the answer. Couldn't hurt, I suppose.

    The article makes it sound like there was nothing but a clash of ideas for 40 years.

    Out of the 70's there was a lot of racism and resentment at the stagflation that got channeled into Reagan. The right wing think tanks started an Amen chorus, abortion wars reached a fever pitch, and Dems started scrambling to try to win elections that they used to win on a FDR platform.

    Then came the bubble of the 90s, and Wall Street Dems looked like geniuses.

    A lot of people were drinking the Koolaid. Not just sold out Dem pols.

    New day now. Lessons have been learned. Unfortunately, many people have learned the wrong lessons, nodding to the siren call of fanatical nationalism and Trump.

    I am not sure what plan the proprietors of this blog favor, but I hope it includes the Dem party because that thin reed is the only thing between us and authoritarian rule for the billionaires.

    Eureka Springs , February 6, 2017 at 8:48 am

    Thin Reed? Authoritarian rule for the oligarchs

    The Dems are the very embodiment of neoliberalism, representatives of oligarchs and soft sellers of authoritarian rule. Far far on the wrong side of the thin reed.

    As the post mentioned – Largest imprisoned, in the world. Lowest life expectancy, for highest expenditures.Allowing millions to be foreclosed upon while further enriching the banksters who rigged the system. That's authoritarian in an extreme and only a few oligarchs benefit. Neoliberalism/Liberalism is authoritarian. Dems are the first to shoot down those who challenge them with so much as polite rhetoric. Feckless as Sanders was he clarified that for anyone who dare look-see, admit it to themselves.

    If Dems were the only party in existence we would be where we are today, if not far worse. Just the way they structure and operate their party is more than enough to prove these points.

    Love the post title but I would wear a t-shirt which say either of these things:

    Don't Side With Neoliberalism in Opposing Trump.

    Don't Side With Democrats in Opposing Trump

    In fact I would prefer the latter.

    PH , February 6, 2017 at 10:51 am

    Why do you prefer Trump and the Republicans?

    Mel , February 6, 2017 at 12:18 pm

    Who said prefer? The thing with siding with the Democrats in opposing Trump is that in four or eight years we're left with nothing but siding with somebody else in opposing the Democrats. How about getting something done, finally? Crazy dream: make the Democrats side with us in opposing Trump.

    tegnost , February 6, 2017 at 9:17 am

    Naked Capitalism is both a reading and study group hey here's a thought, why don't the dems try to include usians, we're not democrats we're americans, after all, and we don't need them if they're going to continue to play the game as they have been playing it, supporting authoritarianism and heaping favors on billionaires. I don't see lessons having been learned, none of the hillary marchers I know can have a cogent , fact based conversation, it's just omg trump, marching is good, globalization o care what will the poor illegal immgrants do, cheap labor is essential, self driving trucks blah blah blah bail out wall st while fraudulent MERS documents are fabricated to steal peoples homes, remember linda green, remember non dischargeable student loans? Have you noticed all those tents under the bridges? The dems ruled for the 10% but it's a big country and a numbers game. You need to get out more. If the dems wanted to win bernie was the ticket. Instead they chose wall st and war then lost like they deserved to lose. In a representative democracy they are supposed to represent us, we're not supposed to represent the dems. They'll be included when they deserve to be, no one owes them allegiance.

    PH , February 6, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    I understand you do not like Dem leaders. But ultimately, the politics are not about them. It is about us.

    How do we protect our kids, our parents, and our friends.

    It involves organizing behind candidates at election time.

    And at this point in time (where we are now) that means organizing through the Dems, through the Repubs, or some third party.

    None of those options are obvious paths to success.

    But we have to pick one, or do nothing.

    jrs , February 6, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    "And at this point in time (where we are now) that means organizing through the Dems, through the Repubs, or some third party."

    Sometimes I figure it may as well be the Repubs (but not of course with their current platform, yea I know people think the Dems is an easier party to take over, but due to LOTE voting I'm not so sure.

    beth , February 6, 2017 at 7:46 pm

    Maybe you can tell me which is better? Cory Booker voted to prevent importation of Canadian drugs to lower the outrageous rx costs. Ted Cruz voted to import drugs so that we are not held hostage to US companies raising drug costs with impunity. Unless the dems are benefiting citizens why should we support them. Bernie's bill would have passed except for 14 dem senators voted to keep drug costs high . Who should we vote for in the next election?

    I hope I am not posting too late. Please delete this if you think I am.

    PH , February 6, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    Booker is a phony. Cruz is a creep. Not much to cheer for in either case.

    I am not suggesting that you owe allegiance to any candidate or party.

    I am suggesting that party politics is an avenue for organizing, and Dem party and traditional coalition is the better avenue for action. Not to do the same things, but to work for peace justice and tolerance.

    Where to target work for change.

    The Repubs are not what some people here imagine. And they will do great harm.

    Ulysses , February 6, 2017 at 7:43 am

    "That thin reed is the only thing between us and authoritarian rule for the billionaires."

    No, that "thin reed" would have continued to obfuscate the existence of authoritarian rule for the billionaires through cynical, insincere manipulation of idpol wedge issues.

    The regime change we are witnessing, here in the U.S., is the cutting out of a layer of cynical, professional grifters between the kleptocrats and the people. In other words authoritarian rule for the billionaires is morphing into direct, in-your-face kleptocracy by and for the billionaires.

    There was an important discussion earlier, here at NC, that I think is relevant to our current situation, sparked by Kalecki's observation that:

    "One of the important functions of fascism, as typified by the Nazi system, was to remove capitalist objections to full employment."

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/kalecki-on-the-political-obstacles-to-achieving-full-employment.html

    It is understandable that American workers would find a genuine commitment to full employment, after so many decades of neoliberal job outsourcing, exhilarating.

    Yet, smashing unions and "othering" large segments of the population didn't end well for the Germans in the mid-20th century, and there's no reason to believe it would work out any better over here.

    PH , February 6, 2017 at 8:16 am

    Maybe that was a significant aspect of the rise of Nazi rule, but it seems to me a bit reductionist to see the Nazis through such a narrow lense.

    Similarly, I think we should resist the temptation of seeing Trump exclusively through the lenses of our anger at Bluedogs for getting us into this mess. I am angry. And those soulless climbers are still running the show in Congress. I am angry about that too.

    But these are dangerous times. We need to organize. We need to win elections. And we do not have ANY easy path that I can see.

    In my view, we need to channel our energy into primary challenges in the Dem party.

    Gman , February 6, 2017 at 9:53 am

    The US Democratic Party has more than a little in common with the British Labour Party sadly.

    I wouldn't pin your hopes on their resolve to stand up for the average working voter in the face of big money interests.

    Both parties have steadily rendered themselves irrelevant to their erstwhile core voters through a toxic combination of venality, hubris, contempt, obsessive virtue signalling/ political correctness, vacuous ideologies, a reliance on endless empty rhetoric, populism, 'foreign misadventure' and much more besides.

    Their currency, in the eyes of swathes of once loyal voters, has been so devalued under the leaderships of flag of convenience crypto-neoliberal politicians like Blair, Brown, the Clintons and Obama that this is going to be a Herculean task to row back from in order to recentre and reconnect with betrayed, bruised voters.

    Trump might be a crass out and out shameless, populist, self-serving sociopathic assh#le, but unlike those mentioned above, in the eyes of many of those disenfranchised who backed him, some most likely out of desperation, at least he's currently less of a lying hypocrite and, more importantly, he hasn't let them down badly yet.

    Ulysses , February 6, 2017 at 10:56 am

    "Both parties have steadily rendered themselves irrelevant to their erstwhile core voters through a toxic combination of venality, hubris, contempt, obsessive virtue signalling/ political correctness, vacuous ideologies, a reliance on endless empty rhetoric, populism, 'foreign misadventure' and much more besides."

    Very well said!

    Gman , February 6, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Many, many thanks.

    Steven Greenberg , February 6, 2017 at 8:37 am

    This is not quite right "Trade deals are bad deals unless they enforce the highest health, safety, environmental and labor standards."

    Labor in the underdeveloped countries consider some of this to be the developed countries' trick of preventing the people in the underdeveloped countries from getting jobs. There is some truth to this idea. When we negotiate trade deals, we must remember that in a fair negotiation neither side gets everything it wants, but each side must get enough of what it wants to agree to the terms of the negotiation.

    The trouble with past trade pacts is that only the corporations on both sides of the deal were represented. In the future, labor and environment on both sides must be represented in the negotiations.

    tegnost , February 6, 2017 at 9:25 am

    not quite right, the stateless multinationals play both sides off each other. Globalzation deals like TPP with ISDS clauses are designed to limit sovereignty. We have free trade, you can go anywhere in the world and buy whatever you want to, your "fair negotiation" is a canard and misdirection.

    John Wright , February 6, 2017 at 9:33 am

    One may also refer to USA communities who will accept higher levels of pollution caused by an EPA targeted local industry/plant that provides local jobs where they are in short supply..

    This is very similar to a foreign country accepting higher pollution in trade for jobs for their citizens.

    When someone is desperate to support their family, compromises are made, and the USA has plenty of examples.

    BeliTsari , February 6, 2017 at 10:03 am

    That's kind of representative of the basic problem: before the white working class morphed into The Middle Class during Reagan's Miracle, they'd long since abandoned hell with the lid off, for suburbia (the nation's economy was based upon this; unions, political parties, finance all fed off of upward mobility, basically away from the poor, polluted, neglected, heavily policed industrial areas (bottom feeders like Trump's dad or DNC's slumlord super-delegates hardly invented this). EZ Credit, Bail Bonds, Party Stores, doc-in-a-box, PayCheck Loans sucked-up what the politicians' business associates left behind. As Trump moves on from trolling liberal elites to fomenting race war, mass incarceration, etc, as LBJ, Nixon, Reagan & Clinton did with urban renewal, the war on drugs, welfare reform some of us will scrambling to figure out just how we're not just another part of the problem?

    BeliTsari , February 6, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    PS: The rust belt is a fascinating place just now! http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/the-ending-of-84-lumbers-super-bowl-ad-is-a-beautiful-and-provocative-take-on-immigration/

    John Rose , February 6, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    I wish I was still building houses so I could change suppliers.

    jrs , February 6, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    U.S. = 3rd world country.

    digi_owl , February 6, 2017 at 8:47 am

    As best i can tell, the neolibs have hijacked feminism for their own ends

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 6, 2017 at 9:19 am

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." -Upton Sinclair

    One group of corporate war mongers likes different symbols.

    polecat , February 6, 2017 at 3:17 pm

    A contemporary version of that Sinclair quote could be stated as such :

    "When Neo-fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a Lady Gaga p#ssy-gown and carrying a case of birth-control pills . while screaming 'White, Deplorable, F#cker' !!"

    Gaylord , February 6, 2017 at 9:44 am

    Offshore tax sheltered wealth in the trillions must be reigned in, but nobody in a position of leadership is allowed to touch it, only to make token noises about it like Sen. Warren does.

    John Wright , February 6, 2017 at 9:58 am

    It appears that Leopold misses another issue that hits American workers, that being the "insourcing" of foreign workers, either legally (H1-B's) or illegally to the USA.

    American workers are certainly aware that some jobs can be outsourced via computer/phone networks to other countries, but are also aware that neo-libs have been more than willing to also let jobs that require a physical presence in the USA be wage arbitraged down via increasing the domestic labor supply via immigration.

    I don't believe the old assertion that "an immigrant displacing an American worker frees the American to find a better job" gathers much support from American workers/voters, if it ever did.

    Trump tapped into this, and the Democrats will ignore this issue at their peril..

    Neither political party wants to enforce employer sanctions, via mandatory E-Verify, as that would be frowned on by both party's paymasters.

    Sam , February 6, 2017 at 9:59 am

    "Trump actually is attacking two of its foundational elements-free trade and unlimited capital mobility. Not only is Trump violating neoliberal theory, he also is clashing with the most basic way Wall Street cannibalizes us. Without the free movement of capital, assisted by trade deals, financial elites and their corporate partners would not be able to slash labor costs, destroy unions and siphon off wealth into their own pockets."

    Given the ease with which Trump reverses himself, I wouldn't take these utterances seriously.

    Vatch , February 6, 2017 at 10:03 am

    At the same time we should be rounding up support for the Sanders bill to stop off-shoring.

    I couldn't find "Outsourcing Prevention Act" at Congress.gov. It is possible that the bill hasn't been introduced yet? Or maybe it has another name? I found these possibilities:

    H.R.357 – Overseas Outsourcing Accountability Act

    H.R.685 – Bring Jobs Home Act

    S.234 – A bill to provide incentives for businesses to keep jobs in America.

    Carolinian , February 6, 2017 at 10:05 am

    Good article but needs an addendum: don't side with Democrats in opposing Trump. There's a case to be made that Trump himself is really an independent even though he has by necessity stuffed his administration with some GOP trogs. Therefore when Trump does something our side likes he should be praised even though it might diminish the chances of the dearly sought Trumpexit. The US public at large increasingly see themselves as independents rather than supporters of the duopoly and the left–including and perhaps especially Sanders–should stop fooling themselves that they will ever reform the Dems. In fact the thing that might do the most to reform the Dems would be some vibrant third party competition that forces them to protect their left flank.

    PH , February 6, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    Nothing wrong with a third party approach in theory.

    In practice, it would likely take many years. It is not culturally accepted, nor do our voting laws favor third parties.

    I do not think we have that much time.

    joe citizen , February 6, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    But we have enough time to hope the Democratic Party who is completely subservient to corporate interests will suddenly decide to forget about all the money they are making and side with the workers, poor, and the environment? Voting in all new people would take many years, not to mention the party structure that cannot be changed by voting. The majority of registered democrats support neo-liberal candidates. How do you propose this quick change of the democratic party to support traditional leftist policy will take place?

    paul Tioxon , February 6, 2017 at 10:18 am

    Note to self: I will not be bamboozled into self-destructive political adventurism by mindlessly opposing the perfectly legitimate President Trump when ever he happens to do something so swell that helps pay the rent, buys food and keeps a roof over my head. I will stop going to ALL of those protest marches that demands that rowhouse Philadelphia give up their jobs in reparations for neo-colonial and hegemonic neo-liberal bad stuff by sending them to Mexico and the Dominican Republic or even Viet Nam or China. I understand that people in America are people too, and need their jobs and do not have trust funds to live off of when they donate their employment with no hope for a replacement job to prevent a downward spiral into poverty.

    I get it, by not focusing on real pocket book issues and major social programs, like the ones we used to get in the afterglow of post WWII economic expansion, we just left the barn door open for all of the wronged white guys in coal mines, all 57,000 of them nationally, to come out in the full force of democracy in action under our definition of democracy, the electoral college. By not recognizing that the iron law of democracy, where the consent of the majority of people is the deciding principle in American politics, and marching after a political loss instead of going out in front of the coal mines and factories and laying down in front of the trucks hauling jobs away, I am a dope. I promise to fete The President Trump in editorial pages, blog sites, graffitti on walls and other public property when he creates jobs as a result, direct or indirect, of his policies. After all, it is axiomatic that if Trump repeatedly fails to do anything of value for our nation, most of us will suffer. If he puts forth an infrastructure financial package with the Japanese and their global investment bank, I will hail as a partnership in progress.

    After all, if we can fix up the country's faltering highways and bridges and air ports and sea ports, we will modernized America, give people good paying jobs. And that is a good thing. I am all for it. President Trump is supposed to be all for it. So, when the jobs start pouring in with all of the concrete and rebar, I will not protest. I will publicly applaud him. I will however be organizing behind the scenes to crush him like a bug in the next election. I foresee a bidding war in jobs offered to the forgotten and not so forgotten and I expect to come out on top as the highest bidder.

    Left in Wisconsin , February 6, 2017 at 10:31 am

    Les Leopold is a smart guy and always has interesting things to say. But in this case, I think he glosses over the biggest issue: people will not organize into unions if they believe that doing so, or trying to do so, risks making their personal employment situation worse, not better.

    Anti-union activity by employers is now so routine and expected, and protections for workers trying to organize, either from unions or government, are so weak that the vast majority of working people have come to view trying to organize as insane. (Yes, card check will help in a few situations but is not a game changer.) The purported low unemployment rate does nothing to empower working people because (except for the occasional exception that proves the rule) it is still overwhelming the case that one's current job is better than any likely other job one would have to get if one lost it. And irritating your boss is still the likeliest way to get fired, or get your department outsourced, or get your entire workplace shut down.

    And the fact that some public sector workers still have workplaces that make them less likely to get fired or replaced for trying to exercise workplace "rights" just points out how poor things are for most private sector workers, resulting in even less sympathy for those workers.

    What Trump gets is that, in this environment, most working people will support the (anti-tax, anti-regulation) platform their boss supports, rather than the (higher-tax, stronger-regulation) one their boss hates, if the (strong union) platform that is good for them that their boss really, really hates is off the table.

    Platforms and study groups are well and good but we need much more. As said above, we need a new labor movement, in particular one that can organize in the private export-sensitive sector. There is no such thing as a(n even moderately) successful labor movement without strong unions in the private export-sensitive sector. But there is no way to organize workers in this sector without being able to demonstrate why being in a union is likely to materially improve their well-being. But one can't get such a thing without strong government support to ensure trying to organize doesn't in fact risk resulting in losing your job. Chicken-And-Egg problem.

    old flame , February 6, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Employers have so much power over workers now: right-to -work laws, tax incentives, H1B and undocumented workers, Chamber of Commerce and lobbyists. Probably the only way to have any clout would be to have a National Strike and boycotts which would be tough to organize. I know that employers in an area will collude with other companies to set and limit wages and benefits. I had a friend that I worked with in a factory back in the 70s who was promoted to the office in a secretarial position who told me about meetings our company had with other ones in the community where they discussed and made agreements on labor issues. This was back in the 70s. They were always threatening us about unions and I never had heard anyone talk about joining one or any kind of union activity.

    TG , February 6, 2017 at 10:32 am

    Yes, well said as usual.

    As regards the standard of living in third-world countries, it should by now be apparent that the model of 'development' that uses low wages to attract foreign businesses simply can not – and does not – increase general prosperity. How can it? The model is that low wages ('affordable labor costs') are the engine, therefore the wages need to stay low to keep the multinationals in place.

    Look at the effects of NAFTA: the United States lost a lot of jobs, Mexico gained jobs, but Mexican wages remain low. The NAFTA model is pulling the United States down and not pulling Mexico up. That is now well established. Nobody need feel any guilt about opposing trade agreements like NAFTA.

    Ah, but what about China? Well China is a little different from Mexico – they are more mercantilist. In the long run the established method of creating prosperity is to have a stable or slowly growing population, and slowly but steadily build up endogenous industries and a strong internal market. "Race to the bottom" trade agreements yield exactly what the term suggests.

    PQS , February 6, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Where do I sign up? I'm ready to go. However, I think one aspect of this transformational mission is missing: MONEY.

    The RW has metric tons of billionaires who use their money to propagate their ideologies and build "think tanks" and other institutions to provide the veneer of respectability. I believe it's one of the primary reasons that they've been so successful in pushing their extreme ideas on everybody. They have an ALEC branch in every statehouse writing laws, which I'm sure they don't do for free. They can gerrymander, buy off, and otherwise distort the entire process for little more than walking around money for them.

    I know Sanders nearly won with small donors, so perhaps that could be replicated in this scenario, but long term, I think having some serious money to back up these initiatives is going to make the job actually doable. And there are a few actual billionaires who might be amenable to using their wealth for the greater good. Nick Hanauer comes to mind.

    JEHR , February 6, 2017 at 11:33 am

    During the Depression of the 1930's in the Maritimes, the Antigonish Movement began:

    The Antigonish Movement blended adult education, co-operatives, microfinance and rural community development to help small, resource-based communities around Canada's Maritimes improve their economic and social circumstances. A group of priests and educators, including Father Jimmy Tompkins, Father Moses Coady, Rev. Hugh MacPherson and A.B. MacDonald led this movement from a base at the Extension Department at St. Francis Xavier University (St. F.X.) in Antigonish, Nova Scotia.

    The credit union systems of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI owe their origins to the Antigonish Movement, which also had an important influence on other provincial systems across Canada. The Coady International Institute at St. F.X. has been instrumental in developing credit unions and in asset-based community development initiatives in developing countries ever since.

    It is noteworthy that the movement began with Adult Education: if people do not understand what has brought them debt and poverty, it will be difficult to counteract them.

    I'm sure that in the US during the Depression, there were many such movements which helped people understand and defeat the Depression.

    Looking back at what succeeded in the past can help towards a better future. Of course, it will have to be adapted for the present problems, but starting with education is a really positive move.

    John Rose , February 6, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    How about online adult education drawing on the talents of charismatic teachers and more local face-to-face seminars to provide the core activists we need.

    Jack , February 6, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Good article which made some good points.
    "The progressive instinct, and rightfully so, is to trash Trump. If he's for it, we must be against it."
    One instance of this is the huge play the immigration fight is getting. I don't agree with how Trump enacted his immigration "reform" but I agree that immigration needs to be curtailed. Significantly curtailed. H1B visas pretty much need to be done away with, and if you are in this country illegally, you need to leave. And any further immigration needs to be reduced. This outcry against immigration reform by the liberals, what many in this country see as a huge problem, is not winning over any hearts and minds in flyover country. It's like when Bill Clinton first got elected and he wasted a lot of time and political capital on the gays i the military issue. Only this time the Dems are not even in office. Still a waste of political capital. In my mind this whole immigration reform paranoia is just another form of identity politics by the Democrats. What progressives need to focus on is campaign finance reform, jobs, health care reform, education, and increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Those issues resonate with everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike. It is why Trump won. Don't fix these problems and immigration will be the least of our worries as a nation. If things get worse in our economy, immigrants and refugees are going to be in a much worse place than they are right now. People who are going hungry and who are sick with no hope on the horizon have to blame someone. And Americans are not known for the high level of intelligence and knowledge of how the world really works. Anyone who looks "different" will be blamed and there will be blood in the streets. I think we are almost to that point now.

    jrs , February 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    "This outcry against immigration reform by the liberals, what many in this country see as a huge problem, is not winning over any hearts and minds in flyover country. It's like when Bill Clinton first got elected and he wasted a lot of time and political capital on the gays i the military issue. Only this time the Dems are not even in office. Still a waste of political capital. In my mind this whole immigration reform paranoia is just another form of identity politics by the Democrats."

    The Dims maybe, but that's not why actual people protest, it's mostly because they know illegals are those who serve their food when they order breakfast, are on the train on the way to work, etc.. I know fly-over just doesn't get it, because they don't live among and with illegals as part of their daily life, but it's hard to see them driven out if one does.

    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg , February 6, 2017 at 12:02 pm

    re "But What About the Poor in Other Countries?"

    All the points made in answer to that need to be memorized, because if you're to the left of Andrew Carnegie or Ayn Rand that's what they'll throw at you. 'Americans consume 99% of all fossil fuels and create 98% of all the trash and blah blah!' We're a little sick of it.

    jrs , February 6, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    "Americans consume 99% of all fossil fuels and create 98% of all the trash and blah blah!' We're a little sick of it."

    It's all true of course.

    But yea they rely on left/liberals basic goodness (ok not all liberals have any real goodness (or why don't they oppose the wars more?), most leftists are pretty darn moral though) and they'll use it to enrich themselves, because they are not good at all, but know how to get good people to be subserviant to their own selfish ends.

    Wade Riddick , February 6, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Most manufacturing jobs are lost via automation, not outsourcing. What do we plan to do about that?

    The cheaper the capital (e.g., low interest rates), the easier it is to substitute capital for labor. Whenever the Fed bails out a bubble via monetization, labor takes another hit.

    Solar's more cost-effective and adding more jobs now than the fossil fuel industry – yet official policy now seems hell-bent on ginning up another oil reserve lending bubble.

    Plenty of inconsistencies abound

    Left in Wisconsin , February 6, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    Most manufacturing jobs are lost via automation, not outsourcing.

    Do you a citation for that? I have looked for actual evidence/proof of this claim and have not been able to locate any.

    Brad , February 6, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    Wade is correct. I've posted a chart of the BLS statistics on long term manufacturing employment in absolute and relative terms on this site. Manufacturing employment's relative share of total employment has fallen in a straight and steady diagonal line from upper right to lower left from its peak in the 1950's to the present. Began long before off-shoring was a thing, and off-shoring doesn't even clearly show as an independent variable. Otherwise we'd see a significant bend in the curve. Instead, significant deviations are conjunctural, connected to recessions.

    The BLS charts can be easily researched by anybody on this site. I don't want to hear conspiracy theories about how BLS has politically rigged the stats for 60 years as lazy substitute for critical approaches to BLS statistical methods. If you want to refute the evidence, that's what is required.

    BTW, as I've also mentioned, there is a "revolutionary left" version of this emphasis on off-shoring over automation/mechanization, "Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century" by John Smith, http://monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/imperialism-in-the-twenty-first-century/

    It fails to assess the real weight of off-shoring vs automation because Smith doesn't base his analysis on the effects of automation, and then move to assess the effects of off-shoring. Therefore Smith can never present a clear quantification of the effects of off-shoring on employment in a metropolitan country like the US.

    At root Smith's limitations are found in his Andre G. Frank "development of underdevelopment" bias. This cannot conceive of under- or uneven- development in an "already developed" country like the US. But that is precisely, palpably, what has happened. And it is inevitable under capitalist automation once it reaches a tipping point. As I believe it has, where only some 25% of the total available labor force is required to produce everything we (very wastefully) consume now, today.

    As an aside, note that off-shoring is not to include products never produced in the US in the first place, like most of Apples' iProducts. You can't "off-shore" jobs you never worked at, now can you! This represents a different process, the export of *new* capital investment, in this case in a contract relation with Chinese SEZ capitalists, not the transfer of *existing* productive investment overseas. But Smith includes iProducts in his "off-shoring" mix.

    The Smith example shows this is a matter of the basic facts about capitalism, not about left or right politics. That is exactly why people gravitate towards off-shoring as a prime-mover in job loss, precisely because something politically can be done about that. Yet if you somehow forced all US corporations to 100% invest production in the US, you will only greatly accelerate the trend of job loss due to automation, as it will be the only lever they have left. Unless you want to halt all human progress in the productivity that has already freed up 75% of our labor time to do something other than maintain the current standard of living.

    The real political problem we need to confront is that, despite these real productivity gains, capitalism requires that the whole mob of proles be continuously prodded onto the wage labor market, whether their labor is necessary or not. That's the fundamental program of the Congressional snakepit and its Statehouse auxiliaries. The wage labor social relation is the source of the social power of capitalists, and without it they and their system go Poof.

    A good reform proposal would be: a guaranteed *medium* income for all (or alternatively, a guaranteed "job" for all at the same income or greater); a system for equitably circulating the total potential labor pool in and out of the pool of necessary labor. It will require a revolution to achieve such a reform.

    pricklyone , February 6, 2017 at 5:31 pm

    @Brad
    "As an aside, note that off-shoring is not to include products never produced in the US in the first place, like most of Apples' iProducts. You can't "off-shore" jobs you never worked at, now can you! This represents a different process, the export of *new* capital investment, in this case in a contract relation with Chinese SEZ capitalists, not the transfer of *existing* productive investment overseas. But Smith includes iProducts in his "off-shoring" mix."

    Doesn't seem like a different process to those needing work to survive. This is why "economists" are being ridiculed and derided among large swathes of the populace. Distinctions without differences which only serve to fit data into precious formulae, based on preconceived ideals. If I develop a new product in the US, and seek only China manufacture (to save myself the labor cost, and evade the external costs of environment, etc.) the result is the same. "New capital investment " is just a matter of timing. Lucky me, I didn't have to go thru the expense of tearing down an existing facility, or relationship, here first.

    dragoonspires , February 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    This seems to me one of the more incisive of the comments. So many are coming at it from the framework of what solutions best get us back to a situation that was better, like one we experienced between the 1950s to the turn of the century. This was a unique period of advantage for the US economically and industry-wise that is unlikely to be repeated, imo, and for awhile seemed to have more easy opportunities for all.

    The progressive platform recognizes how the pillars providing for more equality of opportunity have been battered, and I agree with some of its proposals. But just reversing the tax burden shifts and trying to reinstate more affordable healthcare or education still leaves us with the situation where the need for and nature of work may still be changing radically. I have trouble seeing how a conservative half of the country with extremely powerful propaganda outlets, interest groups, and fountains of money will allow some if any of the ideas proposed in this article (hence Brad's claim that it would require a revolution sways me a good deal).

    I also do not think that Bernie, basically not subjected to any big negative hits in the primary, would have won the general after the right's smear machine was done with him. Even then, the republican congress would have stopped cold any of his more significant proposals.

    Progressives need to get realistic. This agenda will be slow in coming, unless things get so horrible that a true revolution does occur. What that would entail I do not know, but powerful forces are aligned against it. All who spend time theorizing (including me) on keyboards will have to start and sustain the very hard work of getting into the trenches, spreading and fighting for ideas, and most of all, actually winning primaries and elections and helping to get people out to vote. The right wing started doing this methodically over 45 years ago, with patience and persistence.

    Trump/RW domination needs to be stopped asap, by whatever plausible if less than ideal tools we have. Protests are getting attention, and I hope more participation and results will come next. Purity tests of progressive ideals is a cancer that will only doom the cause. It will be hard and maybe slow, but we're going to need more than just the faithful to get this turned around. Bernie was a start, but too many are throwing up their hands just because he lost the primary.

    I plan to keep working to change the democratic party for the better, at a pace that is realistic. Getting a more progressive tax structure again to fund any of these ideas is critical first. I also can't see a guaranteed income without a required work contribution to address the evolving economy, given this country's attitude towards earning one's keep. A sort of advanced CCC to work on massively fixing and improving our crumbling infrastructure and public spaces, fighting forest fires, etc. using these tax funds is one idea. Subsidizing quick as possible job training as new jobs evolve with the radical changes in the economy is another. More support for local small business and entrepreneurs (perhaps funding employees who they need for awhile in startup phase as part of minimum guaranteed income in exchange for work) until they prove to be an ongoing concern is another thought. Even if these ideas are flawed, we need to rethink the paradigm of work with which we grew up.

    Yves Smith , February 6, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    I don't agree. Obama could not only have done a Roosevelt 100 days, he literally could have re-implemented many of his policies. This was a window of opportunity that he ignored and bizarrely, the public at large airbrushes out of its memory.

    I don't at all buy that the US can't afford this. Did you forget we spend ginormous amounts on our military, and that could instead be be redirected to domestic uses? Japan, a less rich country generally considered to be in decline, is vastly more egalitarian than America and scores way above us and every other country in the world on social indicators. Some of that, sadly, may prove out that ethnically mixed societies don't "do" egalitarianism because some groups don't want to cut less advantaged groups in.

    The issue is that the elites (a word used only on sites like Alex Jones before the crisis) are all in for increasing inequality. That means not investing in education for the masses and much heavier policing, since unequal societies are more violent, among other things.

    aab , February 6, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    I also do not think that Bernie, basically not subjected to any big negative hits in the primary, would have won the general after the right's smear machine was done with him.

    Progressives need to get realistic.

    Purity tests of progressive ideals is a cancer that will only doom the cause. It will be hard and maybe slow, but we're going to need more than just the faithful to get this turned around.

    I have pulled these out of your comments, because they are generally used by tribal Democrats to rationalize the party's incompetent, destructive behavior. I am not saying that's why you're doing it. But I'd like to address them.

    I heartily concur with Yves' reply to you, to start.

    Second, you mention in other places than the ones I quoted this idea of doing what's "realistic" and being "realistic." What do you mean by that? The neoliberal Democrats had a quarter of a century to demonstrate that their way worked for the citizens of the United States and the Democratic Party. They failed on both counts. More of strategy and policy that has a proven record of failure would be unwise - do you agree?

    If you do agree, and you want to reform the Democratic Party, as you state above, then your choice is easy: focus your energies on getting rid of all the entrenched neoliberals and corporate-aligned Democrats, both party functionaries and elected officials. No positive change can occur until that task is completed.

    If you do NOT agree that the neoliberal New Democrats must be purged from the party, what is your vision of realistic change, what makes it realistic, and what makes it change?

    Also, you are simply incorrect about Bernie and the general election. All data we have demonstrates strongly that he would have won. There's no smear machine in America better than the Clinton machine plus the major corporate media aligned with it. He was smeared constantly with vile falsehoods - one of which you clearly fell for, which is that he wasn't smeared. He would have held the Democratic states unquestionably, and held the Rust Belt, and thus won the election. Tell me what states you imagine he would have lost to Trump?

    The realistic approach is get rid of the New Democrats utterly and completely. They have failed catastrophically. That will be a hard task, but that doesn't' make it unrealistic. To leave them in place and think the party will win back governing power or do anything good for the average citizen would be unrealistic.

    blucollarAl , February 6, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    Can anyone any longer deceive oneself about the primary meaning and purpose of the Democratic Party? The DP, as it has been redefined and transformed since the Nixon-McGovern election of 1972, is a political vehicle that primarily seeks to represent the interests of mainly urban upper-middle suburban well-educated and well-off professionals, managers, educators, and technologists, along with those other racial/ethnic/social groups that happen to be privileged by elite opinion at any given time.

    If the quixotic Sanders run taught us anything, it is that there is no interest, no room within the DP for critical economic and social argument. Not just radical class-based neo-Marxist criticism but even the kind of economic issue-framing that became a hallmark of the DP in the FDR regime and persisted with sometimes more, other times less strength until the 70's.

    The so-called "resistance" to Trump has only reaffirmed this conclusion. Insofar as it is being led by DP and DP-leaning media and other talking-head pseudo-intelligentsia, it has focused almost entirely on the same social lifestyle and individual empowerment sexual/gender issues that have characterized it over the past 40 years. This inability to think outside of what too often reduces in final analysis to solipsistic "me-isms", for example by framing important political questions like immigration, imperial reach, and deregulation in ways that transcend the usual racial-ethnic-gender identity differences, prevents the DP and its sycophants from suggesting deeper grounds for solidarity-in-opposition. Most readers of NC understand what these deeper grounds are!

    As I wrote another time a few years ago, DP players and pundits, often urban in residence and outlook, and often themselves financially well off, ensconced in high-priced city dwellings, shopping at Whole Foods, frequenting high-end fashion boutiques, attending the best schools on mommy and daddy's dime, often appear more transparently hostile and condescending to what they judge to be the unsophisticated prejudices and religious backwardness of lower, working, and middle class Americans than do the Trumps of the Republican Party. The latter, equally or even more well-heeled than their ersatz opponents, have learned beginning in the Nixon-Colson "silent majority" days, how to project a kind of "rural, small town folksiness", filling their rallies with country music stars and NASCAR heroes, and who know enough to drag out a "social-cultural conservative" every now and then to show that they "hear and care" for the "forgotten American" even if they consistently ignore these very people in the political arena.

    To be sure, the Republicans don't give a rat's ass about these things. Applying the categories of the silent-majority Americans, they are as "amoral" as the Democrat special-interest spokespeople. However, when it is a case of neither party addressing the causes that underlie the real deep-rooted rottenness that has become 21st Century America, the blue collar "ordinary" American will often fall back on the party of lip-service that at least to him or her seems to be listening to the anxieties and resentments felt by them. The irony of course is that neoliberal policies consistently applied will destroy (have destroyed) whatever was real and true about the America they think has been left behind.

    Livius Drusus , February 6, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    Great post. As an example of what you are talking about, I see very little concern from Democrats and liberals about the current Republican efforts to pass a national right to work law, even though this will hurt unions which are supposed to be one of the core elements of the Democratic coalition. Is this surprising? Of course not, given Obama's failure to fight for card check and to give support to the embattled unions in Wisconsin during their fight with Scott Walker. What happened to those comfortable shoes? Did Obama lose them? Unions give the Democrats money and troops during election years and are then kicked to the curb when the Democrats are in power or at most given scraps.

    The upper-middle class professionals and managers who dominate the Democratic Party want to continue the identity politics emphasis with regard to opposition to Trump because they are making out well under neoliberalism and are opposed to anything that would tilt the economy in a direction that is more favorable to ordinary workers because they would lose their relative status. Upper-middle class types don't want to go back to the days of the mid-20th century when doctors and lawyers might have to share a neighborhood with factory workers.

    Elizabeth Burton , February 6, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    To many progressives, saving American jobs sounds jingoistic and "protectionism" is a bad word. Isn't global trade helping the poor become less so around the world? Isn't it selfish only to protect American jobs? Isn't it more moral to share scarce manufacturing jobs with the poor in Mexico and Asia? After all, even if a plant closes in the Rust Belt, service sector jobs can be found at wages that still are far higher than what the poor can hope for in low-wage countries.

    May I just say that as a deplorable member of the poor white working class who is a bone-deep progressive that these are classist views of people who sit in their comfortable middle-class bubbles and pretend there are n't people in this country who are suffering from the very things they are so nobly seeking to protect workers in the third world from suffering?

    If you want to know why otherwise sensible, intelligent people voted for Trump, that paragraph right there is a major example. The content is bad enough, but that an author who has written an excellent overview of the situation would automatically attribute that kind of thinking to "progressives" shows just how insidious the academic mindset is, and why the working class, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual preference, automatically shuts out both categories when they stroll in to "educate."

    Tim , February 6, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    The idealism is correct in thought, BUT, if a nation doesn't take care of its own then who will? Nobody.

    If everybody took care of those closest to their sphere of influence the world would be a better place.

    pricklyone , February 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Any attempt to equalize wages in "poorer" countries, would also have to address cost-of-living differences, as well.
    You are not allowed, in "developed" nations, to live a subsistence lifestyle, any longer.
    With higher living standards, comes an obligation to provide citizens with a level of income which can sustain that standard.

    Gman , February 6, 2017 at 6:19 pm

    'Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.

    after that, who cares?
    He's a mile away and you've got his shoes.'

    ~ Billy Connolly

    *great comment by the way.

    that guy , February 6, 2017 at 8:28 pm

    Thank you. Better-put than I could have done. Might I add to this that I wasn't voting for the president of Uruguay or Mexico or whatever, who could reasonably be expected to look out for those people. I was voting for the next president of the United States, who I should be able to reasonably believe will look out for me, as an American, first and foremost.

    Jeremy Grimm , February 6, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    The recent primaries and Presidential election made clear to me how little the concerns of ordinary people mean to the two national parties. However Trump was and remains something of a wildcard - at least promising actions reflecting the concerns of the hoi polli. He has indeed delivered in short order on several of his promises.

    I have trouble characterizing the opposition and protests against Trump. Are they inspired by the Democratic Party's knee-jerk opposition to anything Trump or Neoliberal opponents to Trump's dismantling of the grand corporate take-over embodied in the TPP or upper-middle "liberals" fuming about one or another of their pet issues of the moment like immigration or climate change - issues which Trump seems determined to throttle. My daughter was tempted to join the women's march because she will sorely miss planned parenthood clinics when their funds are cutoff - they were for her the only place she could find real healthCARE at any price.

    At this point I tend to agree with Bernie Sanders assessment of Trump (ref. today's links - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/05/after-trump-moves-to-undo-financial-regulations-sanders-calls-him-a-fraud/ ). I am glad the US seems more cozy with Russia - worried about the US and China and Iran - glad the TPP has been - at least temporarily - dismantled - in short I view Trump as a very mixed blessing whose actions and intents remain opaque. I believe Trump will benefit the obscenely wealthy classes but I'm not sure yet which portions of the obscenely wealthy. I believe there is a power struggle ongoing between different behemoth factions of the uber-rich but the waters they fight in are darkly murky.

    witters , February 6, 2017 at 6:52 pm

    "upper-middle "liberals" fuming about one or another of their pet issues of the moment like immigration or climate change "

    Yeah, climate change an 'issue of the moment'.

    Here is the bedrock of modern political stupdity. A total unconcern for the future of all of us. I don't care where you think you are on the left/right BS, anyone with your view is just another instance of the great problem.

    Scott , February 6, 2017 at 8:07 pm

    I cannot read all the comments & know my own will be but a wisp in the wind. I am grateful to naked capitalism, Yves & Lambert for publishing the best thinking on the subjects.
    "Workers of the World Unite" is about all I can see as the real option to pursue. How to really do that means using all the means of the winners.
    It's seems simply impossible on one hand to be nationalistic, and fair to labor internationally at the same time.
    I keep looking at WWI.
    Workers of the World Unite? How? Fair Trade, Internationally the world is a struggle between the Rich who have inherited wealth & get compound interest, pass on deeds that survive as if a neofeudalism is just ordained.
    Ah hell, I say if you cannot even imagine a utopia you ought not call yourself a human being.
    Purchasing Power Parity & World Government?
    Without private property things get weird & corruption grows from elites getting access to all.
    In my Transcendia Insurodollar I overcome the flaw of Communist theory.
    I have a part of it going. I have a gov. in govs. concept workable as permanently small.
    Time to expand. Doubtful, really really doubtful.
    I do recognize Les is on the right track and has the correct goals. The puzzle is how to really work at the Two Nation Solution of Workers & Power, corporate Power is immense.
    They throw out regulations we know are necessary.
    Force & mind control propaganda are levers at their fingertips.
    Force? 8 have so much wealth the majority divided by language & borders a challenge is seen as doomed.
    I shall imagine.

    VietnamVet , February 6, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    I found myself agreeing with most of the points in the post. We must be clear that Donald Trump is anti-Globalist but to get GOP support and appointees he assimilated their tribal beliefs. If he is stupid or crazy we must say so and explain why. If he is right and does something that benefits American citizens such as ratcheting down the Cold War 2.0 with Russia, we must applaud. I am fairly certain that to spite him and keep the bribes flowing, Democrats will not support the re-branding of "Medicare for All" to "TrumpCare".

    It may be my history or old age; but, I am afraid that the global elite have decided the USA is ripe for a final harvest and have gr

    [Feb 04, 2017] A color revolution is under way in the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
    "... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
    "... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
    "... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
    "... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
    "... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
    "... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
    "... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
    "... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
    "... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
    "... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
    "... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
    "... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
    "... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
    "... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
    "... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
    Feb 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "

    Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the USA right now.

    Politico seems to feel the same way. See their recent cover :

    While I did predict that " The USA is about to face the worst crisis of its history " as far back as October of last year, a month before the elections, I have to admit that I am surprised and amazed at the magnitude of the struggle which we see taking place before our eyes. It is now clear that the Neocons did declare war on Trump and some, like Paul Craig Roberts, believe that Trump has now returned them the favor . I sure hope that he is right.

    Let's look at one telling example:

    US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk.

    According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former

    Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.

    He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing.

    Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).

    That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet Nomenklatura , roughly 3 million people (and even bigger mistake!).

    But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.

    By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin.

    Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon

    This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.

    In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the " pussyhat revolution " as explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists, you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image on the right shows.

    This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.

    This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".

    Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:

    Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not once, but twice.

    What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!

    How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for rebellion and sedition ?

    So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they were well covered by the media:

    Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example:

    Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children".

    Want even more proof?

    Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select just two:

    The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA and Trump is the ultimate Evil.

    This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.

    My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.

    One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.

    The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    Can he do that?

    Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card: General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces to ensure "collaboration".

    However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.

    Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way: while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis), the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash and burn into the scandal.

    9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).

    I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal: the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".

    You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.

    1. First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
    2. Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
    3. Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic?
    4. Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.

    There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.

    Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?

    I don't know.

    I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular" military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces). SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.

    Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough. Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.

    One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street" take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists, all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve their goals.

    The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.

    I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think of as "deplorables

    It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word " быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again in 2017.

    [Feb 04, 2017] Is Inequality a Political Choice?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
    "... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
    "... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
    "... Wealth and Democracy ..."
    "... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
    "... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
    "... What socio-econ OU ..."
    "... Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
    "... Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'." ..."
    "... no sh*t, Sherlock ..."
    "... Wealth and Democracy ..."
    "... However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. ..."
    "... early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html ..."
    "... What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
    "... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
    "... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
    "... TCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP ..."
    "... and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture ..."
    "... Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion Group ..."
    Feb 04, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on February 4, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good job of selling the idea that inequality is the fault of those who come out on the short end of the stick that academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what ought to be intuitively obvious.

    Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

    The fact that most of the fruits of US economic growth have not been shared with the lower-middle and working class is accepted across the political spectrum in America. But that inequality is often treated as a somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and technological change. That view is contradicted by the comparison of income growth and distribution statistics between the US and three others rich countries, France, Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max Roser and Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford. Writing in Vox on the database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen note:

    "We compare the evolution of the income an individual needs to be right at the 10th percentile of the income distribution to the evolution of the income of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these two groups the 'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look at how much incomes grew for the poor and the rich in absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely shared. We measure income after taxes and transfers, and adjust for differences in prices over time and across countries using inflation and purchasing power information. Our database can be accessed online, with more information on our exact measure and data for other countries."

    The US performs poorly by comparison to these countries, for reasons that may have more to do with structure, institutions and policy. Roser and Thewissen conclude:

    "The differences we have identified across countries and time imply that increased globalization and technological change cannot be blamed as sole causes for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders and should affect all countries. The fact that other developed countries have been able to share the benefits of these market forces suggests that policy choices on the national level play a central role for boosting living standards. Policies can make a difference not just in growth levels, but also in who gets the benefits of that growth."

    8 0 16 3 1 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Free markets and their discontents , Global warming , Guest Post , Income disparity , Politics , Regulations and regulators , The destruction of the middle class on February 4, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 36 comments Disturbed Voter , February 4, 2017 at 7:03 am

    The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic. Like two points determine a single line. When you start out from an unequal position (not like at the start of a foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one person who crosses the finish line first vs the losers. And much of life is "first across the finish line". Also since in this case, the winner of the last race, gets an advantage on the next starting line the unequal advantage tends to accumulate. Life is unfair. The point is to maintain the status quo, statically and dynamically. Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers used to. The previous winners continue to win these unequal contests, but the number of happy workers gets fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits of inequality are now being shared less equally ;-) The purpose of government is to benefit the status quo. Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change will occur but only when the current status quo maintenance system fails. Conclusion: like the game of Musical Chairs there is no change until the music stops, and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it is less fun in real life.

    Moneta , February 4, 2017 at 7:16 am

    Funny how kids' games are there to show how luck works in life and how people work around it, yet many never seem to see the link.

    Disturbed Voter , February 4, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Unfortunately many in the current generation are content to play the little pig, in Charlotte's Web. They forget where McDonald's McRib comes from. Again, children's culture is illustrative and simplified.

    MP , February 4, 2017 at 10:14 am

    I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current generation" – especially among those who don't have the "divided baggage" of the generations that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated historical circumstances aligned with modern "evolution," it may not be as easy for power to continue to "manipulate and control."

    Kris Alman , February 4, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Speaking of generations
    In 2010, Steve Bannon directed and wrote this film: Generation Zero
    http://generationzeromovie.com/trailers.html

    You can watch the full length movie here:
    http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/generation_zero

    In this fear-mongering film, conservatives like Gingrich put a spin on the power of the "elite" destroying the middle class in a revisionist approach (although they are quick to point out that both parties are captured by global corporations). The future: austerity, deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with probable war) ahead of us.

    The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
    Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'."

    David Kaiser has distanced himself from Bannon's extreme views.
    http://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

    When I was first exposed to Strauss and Howe I began thinking how their ideas explained the histories of other countries as well, and during our interview, I mentioned that crises in countries like France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917 had led to reigns of terror. Bannon included those remarks in the final cut of Generation Zero.
    A second, more alarming, interaction did not show up in the film. Bannon had clearly thought a long time both about the domestic potential and the foreign policy implications of Strauss and Howe. More than once during our interview, he pointed out that each of the three preceding crises had involved a great war, and those conflicts had increased in scope from the American Revolution through the Civil War to the Second World War. He expected a new and even bigger war as part of the current crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by the prospect.
    I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing that the history of international conflict was my own specialty, he repeatedly pressed me to say we could expect a conflict at least as big as the Second World War in the near or medium term. I refused.
    Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic thinking flourish during crisis periods. This represents perhaps the biggest danger of the Trump presidency, and one that will bear watching from all concerned citizens in the months and years ahead.

    That's why we should all be concerned about Bannon being added to the National Security Council. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/susan-rice-steve-bannon/index.html

    Bannon's Islamaphobia portends a 'global war' between 'the Judeo-Christian west' and 'jihadist Islamic fascism.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/steve-bannon-islamophobia-film-script-muslims-islam

    MP , February 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    Thanks for the information. I'm aware of the madman's "movie" and his authoritarian ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves will continue to unravel right before our eyes. Many lives will continue to be severely impacted by these hateful, selfish, abusive throwbacks from "central casting."

    DWD , February 4, 2017 at 10:10 am

    The Race

    Every day there is a race you have to run. For the sake of discussion, let's call it a 100 yard race.

    The participants are called and then evaluated by the judges. Starting points for the race are then determined. If you are particularly comely, you are given an advantage: that is, your starting point is moved up depending on the judges. If you have a personality that people find attractive, you are given further yards. If you happen to have had great success in school, you are awarded so many yards because of your academic record. If you happen to be good looking and personable, the academic success yards are added onto your already determined starting point.

    Then the quality and reputation of your educational institution is evaluated and you are given further yards to determine starting points with certain schools worth a better starting position. And even the type of training at the institution is evaluated and further yards given.

    Finally the judges add your total experiences – including your finishing position in previous races – advanced degrees, and connections and further yards are added.

    So when the gun sounds, the person without the advantages strives as hard as they can but they cannot win the race because some people only have to simply step over the finish line.

    And even more troubling some people are moved behind the starting line because they could not even muster the necessary accomplishments to reach the starting line: drop outs from school, people who have been convicted of crimes and the rest. The worse the offense, the further you are moved behind the starting line.

    Every day this continues and those striving to win – even running faster and harder than their competitors – are simply unable to do so because the rules are such that winning is not even a consideration when the race is rigged.

    Jazz Paw , February 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    The factors are certainly at work in inequality. Some of those factors can either be mitigated or compensated for by the individual and/or the social system.

    There are other structural factors that influence inequality. Family connections, inherited wealth, and other forms of social capital that can make advancement easier is one. Savings and investment patterns that can be engaged in to varying degrees depending on just how much surplus income one has is another.

    The social and political system in the US generally favors vigorous competition, private self-dealing, and asymmetric information. Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can prosper, while those who either can't or don't want to can suffer significant disadvantages in outcomes. The influence of these structural factors in any social system influences the degree of income/wealth stratification.

    In my own family, many of the starting social factors are fairly equal among the individuals. Even though my various relatives have not necessarily made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their outcomes have been vastly different. The degree to which they have chosen to engagein income/wealth maximization has generally been a large factor. In that sense, the game is rigged away from living what many consider a humane life.

    David , February 4, 2017 at 7:19 am

    You mean people actually got paid to research and write stuff like this? You simply have to look at the (re)distribution policies of the countries concerned – and there are substantial differences between the three of them, by the way.
    Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what mechanism does globalization necessarily increase inequality, and how does it work precisely in a number of contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong answer.

    lyman alpha blob , February 4, 2017 at 9:38 am

    No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid good money to restate the obvious, but using sesquipedalian language just to make it more difficult to understand.

    Inequality is caused by one group not having as much money as another. Money is simply a tool created by human beings. Much like a hammer, human beings could use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others about the head. We humans seem to prefer the latter use.

    Grebo , February 4, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    The people paid to prove the obvious are far outnumbered by those paid to disprove it. We need the former because of the latter.
    On the other hand, there are many cases where the obvious turned out to be wrong when it was looked at carefully. More research needed!

    Knute Rife , February 4, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie about these obvious things and legislate based on those lies, and businesses make their profits off the lies, so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to point out the lies.

    Fred Grosso , February 4, 2017 at 7:52 am

    Yes. I decided I wasn't going to be Fred Trump's son.

    Disturbed Voter , February 4, 2017 at 8:06 am

    Bravo. Who can tolerate the virtue signaling of the plutocracy?

    Carla , February 4, 2017 at 10:20 am

    +10

    funemployed , February 4, 2017 at 8:36 am

    "Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological change" are things humans do for human reasons. To treat them as "forces" somehow exogenous to human choices is self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic that says the King is the King cause God likes him best.

    They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as heuristics, they are pretty lousy unless you parse them quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar investment in nukes creates "technological change." The destruction of local agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological change." A kindle is "technological change." Keyword searches readily available to academic researchers was a big "technological change."

    I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change" here is the sort that allows us to collectively make more stuff with less work. God forbid anyone spell that out though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more for less because we can now make more stuff with less work," would quickly lead to the violent demise of economists and rich people. (more to say on "globalization" but this post is already way longer than intended.)

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 4, 2017 at 9:21 am

    Redistributive Keynesian capitalism produces the lowest levels of inequality within the developed world from the 1950s to the 1970s.

    1980s – Let's get rid of redistributive Keynesian capitalism.

    Inequality soars.

    What was supposed to happen?

    nowhere , February 4, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    A rising tide of lifting boats

    Pelham , February 4, 2017 at 10:06 am

    Germany should have been included in the study. German manufacturing is far more technologically advanced than manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages to maintain high employment in that sector, probably because the companies invest in worker training and feel some obligation toward labor.

    There's a structural reason for this, with labor having powerful representation on German corporate boards and smaller companies being owned by families instead of faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term interests naturally more in alignment with those of their employees.

    David , February 4, 2017 at 11:22 am

    Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the UK was a bit strange, as well. Inequality in both countries has been increasingly massively in recent years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the topic, if I'm not mistaken. Japan would have been a much better example.

    jrs , February 4, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    I think it kind of makes the point, if even a country that isn't exactly known for egalitarianism, like the UK, is doing better than the U.S. it kind of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.

    nowhere , February 4, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    We are exceptional in every way!

    Barni , February 4, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media claims, the trick that created the German economic miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their banking system.
    In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by "municipally owned banks"!!!
    A situation that the elites – masters of the universe -have been working day and night to drastically alter so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie banks can take complete AND total control of the economy, as they have in most of the developed world except North Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the Bank of Canada – the Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal {municipally or provincially} owned banks) – all three countries, like the German municipally owned banks, are under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats in the IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned by, and minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly the corporate bought and sold world's university economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux economic B.S.
    The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to universities worldwide than all of the rest of the donors combined!?! The proviso on these donations is that they only hire economics profs who have been published in one of the 37 journals published by the U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know what kind of right agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists are dedicated to serving up in order to get published by the U.S. Fed!!!
    So what you say!! Well here's so what!
    If you are in any other developed country than Germany and you have a great idea/product and require a one million dollar loan to build a factory and set up production – here's what happens to you. Your local banks will never lend you that money, so you have to go to the criminal Big Banks which will also never lend you the money you need, which means you will have to sell your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one of their huge corporate clients, who will offshore production to a corrupted third world country where workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are considered a criminal enterprise. Leaving you, the creator of the product or service with pennies on the dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero economic growth and no well paid local employment opportunities. The corporate buyer of your technology/product/idea may well just kill your product because it is better than the (inferior) one they are currently making bags of money selling – for which they have just eliminated your innovative and superior competitive product.
    If you are in Germany however the story is far different. In Germany you would go to your local municipally owned bank which is only too happy to give you the one million dollars you need to set up production (locally providing employment and contributing to local economic prosperity).
    This is the basis for the strength of the German economy and the reason for the so called ":German economic miracle?"!
    It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no idea how it happened, rather because the elites who own more than 80% of all corporate shares need to confuse us plebs they want to economically and politically crush!

    Sluggeaux , February 4, 2017 at 11:01 am

    American wealth inequality is a political problem? Well, no sh*t, Sherlock .

    Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago in his wonderful book Wealth and Democracy . Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats had been placed in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was in check. Then they died-off and left their wealth to a new generation more interested in emulating Mick Jagger than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their Hollywood pal, who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so that they could party like rock stars.

    Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the scions of inherited wealth and Studio 54. They could never have made it on their own, on their own talents, and it is in their class interest to destroy any sort of meritocracy. They have used materialism and greed to buy the political class.

    Advance , February 4, 2017 at 11:21 am

    Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance," which is the extent to which a nation accepts inequality.

    According to Hofstede, countries have different "tastes" or preferences for inequality. For example, the Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other parts of Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared to, say, the Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest.

    I would guess that differences in preferences for inequality between countries go back to a nation's history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down forces and factors.

    The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle point, or a little lower, as to taste for inequality. However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. In other words, we may be getting more inequality than we like.

    By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance preference is a fairly durable characteristic of a nation.

    UserFriendly , February 4, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves inequality, which is why they are known for choosing dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders. And how exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I can vote for Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the egalitarian one?

    Ignacio , February 4, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    "

    However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences.

    "

    What about "power distance" (extent to which a nation accepts inequality) interactions with "distance to power" extent to which a nation influences the powerful.

    Sam , February 4, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    According to Ha-Joon Chang, markets are political creations.

    So, yes.

    Bernard , February 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm

    "To serve Humans." The cookbook from " the Outer Limits/Twilight Zone" TV series had aliens come to "devour" humans. such a farce!! lol

    when the reality all along has been that's it the Rich who wrote the "Cookbook". Bernay's sauce, once again.

    who would have thunk it! Inequality is the major ingredient.

    Anonymous , February 4, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise and Fall of American Growth.' Gordon would say that American labor did well from 1870-1970 because of the innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's productivity and the value of their work. Since 1970, productivity has slowed down. It rose again during the decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers, thanks to the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now has continued to slow. That was a recipe for income inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the rise of digital industries has increased property values on the coasts and in select inland cities.

    Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality by facilitating the decline of interest rates. This helps the haves, since their assets are suddenly more valuable.

    pretzelattack , February 4, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-ford/is-american-economic-grow_b_9096698.html

    this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled from compensation, and that has driven the rise of inequality.

    off topic, but the krugman review of the book contained the interesting fact that, during the 1880's, wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some places.

    UserFriendly , February 4, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by the oligarchs who buy the politicians.

    Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to make millions suffer and die every day because excepting MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice too.

    Ignacio , February 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    I think that inequality is not a political choice directly but a consequence of deregulation or "do nothing" policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.

    marblex , February 4, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    To quote the very astute Batman11 from ZH:

    𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬, 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝, 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝." 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡, 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

    𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞.

    𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐬, 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞.

    They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any hard work to concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the rest.

    The elites became the representatives of the gods
    and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and the harvests. As long as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
    Later they came up with money.

    We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us when you buy things, you live a bare subsistence existence and we take the rest.

    "𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 – 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞." 𝐋𝐞𝐨 𝐓𝐨𝐥𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐲

    𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞.

    A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't die and could reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

    Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the poor lived in squalor and the rich lived in luxury, the same as it had always been.

    Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom a larger slice of the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing to the people who do the work apart from a bare subsistence existence.

    The wealthy decided they needed to do away with organised labour movements and the welfare state; it was interfering with the natural order where they extract all the surplus.

    2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%

    Nearly there.

    They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.

    Some of the world's workers are not living a bare subsistence existence.

    𝐀 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝, 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐨-𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦.

    𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦.

    𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬.

    𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧?

    𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧.

    Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".

    Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas.

    Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.

    Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.

    Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.

    The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.

    It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the people into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was needed when they found out what they were getting.

    It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty everywhere it's tested, they decide it's a system that should be rolled out globally. It's just what they are looking for.

    𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝.

    𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 – "𝟖𝟓 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝"

    𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 – "𝐑𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝟔𝟐 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧"

    𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕 – 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝟓𝟎%

    𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬.

    𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭?

    𝐍𝐚𝐨𝐦𝐢 𝐊𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐧'𝐬 "𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞" 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬."
    Post by Batman11@ZH

    Mitch Ritter , February 4, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose business model and advertising is built on serving the Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of Commerce interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative journalistic team or even an individual columnist\calumnist like recently deceased VILLAGE VOICE early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html

    What socio-econ OU

    Is Inequality a Political Choice? Posted on February 4, 2017 by Yves Smith
    Yves here. Both economists and the press do such a good job of selling the idea that inequality is the fault of those who come out on the short end of the stick that academics need to develop empirical evidence to prove what ought to be intuitively obvious.

    Cross posted from the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

    The fact that most of the fruits of US economic growth have not been shared with the lower-middle and working class is accepted across the political spectrum in America. But that inequality is often treated as a somehow inevitable consequence of globalization and technological change. That view is contradicted by the comparison of income growth and distribution statistics between the US and three others rich countries, France, Norway and the UK - according to new research by Max Roser and Stefan Thewissen of the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford. Writing in Vox on the database they've constructed, Roser and Thewissen note:

    "We compare the evolution of the income an individual needs to be right at the 10th percentile of the income distribution to the evolution of the income of an individual at the 90th percentile. We call these two groups the 'poor' and the 'rich.' We can then look at how much incomes grew for the poor and the rich in absolute terms as well as relative to each other - and thereby assess the extent to which growth was widely shared. We measure income after taxes and transfers, and adjust for differences in prices over time and across countries using inflation and purchasing power information. Our database can be accessed online, with more information on our exact measure and data for other countries."

    The US performs poorly by comparison to these countries, for reasons that may have more to do with structure, institutions and policy. Roser and Thewissen conclude:

    "The differences we have identified across countries and time imply that increased globalization and technological change cannot be blamed as sole causes for rising inequality. Those forces work across borders and should affect all countries. The fact that other developed countries have been able to share the benefits of these market forces suggests that policy choices on the national level play a central role for boosting living standards. Policies can make a difference not just in growth levels, but also in who gets the benefits of that growth."

    8 0 16 3 1 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Free markets and their discontents , Global warming , Guest Post , Income disparity , Politics , Regulations and regulators , The destruction of the middle class on February 4, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 36 comments
    Disturbed Voter , February 4, 2017 at 7:03 am

    The intuitively obvious, should be taken as axiomatic. Like two points determine a single line. When you start out from an unequal position (not like at the start of a foot race) it is unclear who to blame, for the one person who crosses the finish line first vs the losers. And much of life is "first across the finish line". Also since in this case, the winner of the last race, gets an advantage on the next starting line the unequal advantage tends to accumulate. Life is unfair. The point is to maintain the status quo, statically and dynamically. Those who have advantages today, continue to have them, as white collar US workers and even blue collar US workers used to. The previous winners continue to win these unequal contests, but the number of happy workers gets fewer and fewer. This is why Trump voters the benefits of inequality are now being shared less equally ;-) The purpose of government is to benefit the status quo. Therefore policy doesn't offer substantive way out. Change will occur but only when the current status quo maintenance system fails. Conclusion: like the game of Musical Chairs there is no change until the music stops, and someone different can't find a chair to sit in. But it is less fun in real life.

    Reply
    Moneta , February 4, 2017 at 7:16 am

    Funny how kids' games are there to show how luck works in life and how people work around it, yet many never seem to see the link.

    Reply
    Disturbed Voter , February 4, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Unfortunately many in the current generation are content to play the little pig, in Charlotte's Web. They forget where McDonald's McRib comes from. Again, children's culture is illustrative and simplified.

    Reply
    MP , February 4, 2017 at 10:14 am

    I wouldn't underestimate "many in the current generation" – especially among those who don't have the "divided baggage" of the generations that preceded them. Due to purposely recirculated historical circumstances aligned with modern "evolution," it may not be as easy for power to continue to "manipulate and control."

    Reply
    Kris Alman , February 4, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Speaking of generations
    In 2010, Steve Bannon directed and wrote this film: Generation Zero
    http://generationzeromovie.com/trailers.html

    You can watch the full length movie here:
    http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/generation_zero

    In this fear-mongering film, conservatives like Gingrich put a spin on the power of the "elite" destroying the middle class in a revisionist approach (although they are quick to point out that both parties are captured by global corporations). The future: austerity, deregulation and 20 years of chaos (with probable war) ahead of us.

    The film revolves around the Strauss-Howe generational theory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory
    Steve Bannon, Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to President Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker Bannon discussed the details of Strauss-Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero "focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years American history has been marked by a crisis, or 'fourth turning', that destroyed an old order and created a new one". Kaiser said Bannon "is very familiar with Strauss and Howe's theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while." A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: Steve Bannon's obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome commented "Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the 'Fourth Turning'."

    David Kaiser has distanced himself from Bannon's extreme views.
    http://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

    When I was first exposed to Strauss and Howe I began thinking how their ideas explained the histories of other countries as well, and during our interview, I mentioned that crises in countries like France in the 1790s and Russia after 1917 had led to reigns of terror. Bannon included those remarks in the final cut of Generation Zero.
    A second, more alarming, interaction did not show up in the film. Bannon had clearly thought a long time both about the domestic potential and the foreign policy implications of Strauss and Howe. More than once during our interview, he pointed out that each of the three preceding crises had involved a great war, and those conflicts had increased in scope from the American Revolution through the Civil War to the Second World War. He expected a new and even bigger war as part of the current crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by the prospect.
    I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing that the history of international conflict was my own specialty, he repeatedly pressed me to say we could expect a conflict at least as big as the Second World War in the near or medium term. I refused.
    Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic thinking flourish during crisis periods. This represents perhaps the biggest danger of the Trump presidency, and one that will bear watching from all concerned citizens in the months and years ahead.

    That's why we should all be concerned about Bannon being added to the National Security Council. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/susan-rice-steve-bannon/index.html

    Bannon's Islamaphobia portends a 'global war' between 'the Judeo-Christian west' and 'jihadist Islamic fascism.'
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/steve-bannon-islamophobia-film-script-muslims-islam

    Reply
    MP , February 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    Thanks for the information. I'm aware of the madman's "movie" and his authoritarian ideology. He and his commander-of-thieves will continue to unravel right before our eyes. Many lives will continue to be severely impacted by these hateful, selfish, abusive throwbacks from "central casting."

    Reply
    DWD , February 4, 2017 at 10:10 am

    The Race

    Every day there is a race you have to run. For the sake of discussion, let's call it a 100 yard race.

    The participants are called and then evaluated by the judges. Starting points for the race are then determined. If you are particularly comely, you are given an advantage: that is, your starting point is moved up depending on the judges. If you have a personality that people find attractive, you are given further yards. If you happen to have had great success in school, you are awarded so many yards because of your academic record. If you happen to be good looking and personable, the academic success yards are added onto your already determined starting point.

    Then the quality and reputation of your educational institution is evaluated and you are given further yards to determine starting points with certain schools worth a better starting position. And even the type of training at the institution is evaluated and further yards given.

    Finally the judges add your total experiences – including your finishing position in previous races – advanced degrees, and connections and further yards are added.

    So when the gun sounds, the person without the advantages strives as hard as they can but they cannot win the race because some people only have to simply step over the finish line.

    And even more troubling some people are moved behind the starting line because they could not even muster the necessary accomplishments to reach the starting line: drop outs from school, people who have been convicted of crimes and the rest. The worse the offense, the further you are moved behind the starting line.

    Every day this continues and those striving to win – even running faster and harder than their competitors – are simply unable to do so because the rules are such that winning is not even a consideration when the race is rigged.

    Reply
    Jazz Paw , February 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    The factors are certainly at work in inequality. Some of those factors can either be mitigated or compensated for by the individual and/or the social system.

    There are other structural factors that influence inequality. Family connections, inherited wealth, and other forms of social capital that can make advancement easier is one. Savings and investment patterns that can be engaged in to varying degrees depending on just how much surplus income one has is another.

    The social and political system in the US generally favors vigorous competition, private self-dealing, and asymmetric information. Individuals who learn to navigate these factors can prosper, while those who either can't or don't want to can suffer significant disadvantages in outcomes. The influence of these structural factors in any social system influences the degree of income/wealth stratification.

    In my own family, many of the starting social factors are fairly equal among the individuals. Even though my various relatives have not necessarily made "bad" choices in the moral sense, their outcomes have been vastly different. The degree to which they have chosen to engagein income/wealth maximization has generally been a large factor. In that sense, the game is rigged away from living what many consider a humane life.

    Reply
    David , February 4, 2017 at 7:19 am

    You mean people actually got paid to research and write stuff like this? You simply have to look at the (re)distribution policies of the countries concerned – and there are substantial differences between the three of them, by the way.
    Wouldn't a much more interesting question be "By what mechanism does globalization necessarily increase inequality, and how does it work precisely in a number of contrasted cases"? But then you might get the wrong answer.

    Reply
    lyman alpha blob , February 4, 2017 at 9:38 am

    No kidding – kind of amazing that people get paid good money to restate the obvious, but using sesquipedalian language just to make it more difficult to understand.

    Inequality is caused by one group not having as much money as another. Money is simply a tool created by human beings. Much like a hammer, human beings could use it to build houses for everyone or to bash others about the head. We humans seem to prefer the latter use.

    Reply
    Grebo , February 4, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    The people paid to prove the obvious are far outnumbered by those paid to disprove it. We need the former because of the latter.
    On the other hand, there are many cases where the obvious turned out to be wrong when it was looked at carefully. More research needed!

    Reply
    Knute Rife , February 4, 2017 at 1:49 pm

    We're in a world where politicians get paid to lie about these obvious things and legislate based on those lies, and businesses make their profits off the lies, so I can't get too exercised when someone gets paid to point out the lies.

    Reply
    Fred Grosso , February 4, 2017 at 7:52 am

    Yes. I decided I wasn't going to be Fred Trump's son.

    Reply
    Disturbed Voter , February 4, 2017 at 8:06 am

    Bravo. Who can tolerate the virtue signaling of the plutocracy?

    Reply
    Carla , February 4, 2017 at 10:20 am

    +10

    Reply
    funemployed , February 4, 2017 at 8:36 am

    "Forces." Really? "Globalization" and "technological change" are things humans do for human reasons. To treat them as "forces" somehow exogenous to human choices is self-evidently fallacious. It's precisely the same logic that says the King is the King cause God likes him best.

    They're not "forces." They are heuristics. And as heuristics, they are pretty lousy unless you parse them quite a bit. Obama's 1 trillion dollar investment in nukes creates "technological change." The destruction of local agricultural techniques and knowledge is "technological change." A kindle is "technological change." Keyword searches readily available to academic researchers was a big "technological change."

    I'm assuming what they mean by "technological change" here is the sort that allows us to collectively make more stuff with less work. God forbid anyone spell that out though. Because "hey, guess what: you have to work more for less because we can now make more stuff with less work," would quickly lead to the violent demise of economists and rich people. (more to say on "globalization" but this post is already way longer than intended.)

    Reply
    Sound of the Suburbs , February 4, 2017 at 9:21 am

    Redistributive Keynesian capitalism produces the lowest levels of inequality within the developed world from the 1950s to the 1970s.

    1980s – Let's get rid of redistributive Keynesian capitalism.

    Inequality soars.

    What was supposed to happen?

    Reply
    nowhere , February 4, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    A rising tide of lifting boats

    Reply
    Pelham , February 4, 2017 at 10:06 am

    Germany should have been included in the study. German manufacturing is far more technologically advanced than manufacturing in the US, yet Germany manages to maintain high employment in that sector, probably because the companies invest in worker training and feel some obligation toward labor.

    There's a structural reason for this, with labor having powerful representation on German corporate boards and smaller companies being owned by families instead of faceless shareholders, with the families' long-term interests naturally more in alignment with those of their employees.

    Reply
    David , February 4, 2017 at 11:22 am

    Actually, I thought the inclusion of France and the UK was a bit strange, as well. Inequality in both countries has been increasingly massively in recent years. One Thomas Piketty even wrote something on the topic, if I'm not mistaken. Japan would have been a much better example.

    Reply
    jrs , February 4, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    I think it kind of makes the point, if even a country that isn't exactly known for egalitarianism, like the UK, is doing better than the U.S. it kind of shows how extreme on the scale the U.S. is.

    Reply
    nowhere , February 4, 2017 at 6:33 pm

    We are exceptional in every way!

    Reply
    Barni , February 4, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    Contrary to elite owned and serving mass media claims, the trick that created the German economic miracle is no mystery; it was, and IS, their banking system.
    In Germany more than 70% of all banking is done by "municipally owned banks"!!!
    A situation that the elites – masters of the universe -have been working day and night to drastically alter so that their "too big to fail" minion zombie banks can take complete AND total control of the economy, as they have in most of the developed world except North Dakota, Canada (Canada owns the Bank of Canada – the Finance Minister holds all the shares on behalf of all Canadians), and Switzerland (Switzerland has Cantonal {municipally or provincially} owned banks) – all three countries, like the German municipally owned banks, are under attack by the elite serving bureaucrats in the IMF and the U.S. Federal Reserve; all of whom are owned by, and minions of, Wall Street; and most importantly the corporate bought and sold world's university economics departments – co-opted to right agenda faux economic B.S.
    The U.S. Federal Reserve now donates more money to universities worldwide than all of the rest of the donors combined!?! The proviso on these donations is that they only hire economics profs who have been published in one of the 37 journals published by the U.S. Federal Reserve – and we know what kind of right agenda 'fascist' mumbo-jumbo these minion economists are dedicated to serving up in order to get published by the U.S. Fed!!!
    So what you say!! Well here's so what!
    If you are in any other developed country than Germany and you have a great idea/product and require a one million dollar loan to build a factory and set up production – here's what happens to you. Your local banks will never lend you that money, so you have to go to the criminal Big Banks which will also never lend you the money you need, which means you will have to sell your idea/product at pennies on the dollar to one of their huge corporate clients, who will offshore production to a corrupted third world country where workers get paid pennies an hour and unions are considered a criminal enterprise. Leaving you, the creator of the product or service with pennies on the dollar; and leaving your local economy with zero economic growth and no well paid local employment opportunities. The corporate buyer of your technology/product/idea may well just kill your product because it is better than the (inferior) one they are currently making bags of money selling – for which they have just eliminated your innovative and superior competitive product.
    If you are in Germany however the story is far different. In Germany you would go to your local municipally owned bank which is only too happy to give you the one million dollars you need to set up production (locally providing employment and contributing to local economic prosperity).
    This is the basis for the strength of the German economy and the reason for the so called ":German economic miracle?"!
    It is described as a "miracle" not because we have no idea how it happened, rather because the elites who own more than 80% of all corporate shares need to confuse us plebs they want to economically and politically crush!

    Reply
    Sluggeaux , February 4, 2017 at 11:01 am

    American wealth inequality is a political problem? Well, no sh*t, Sherlock .

    Kevin Phillips wrote about this phenomenon a decade ago in his wonderful book Wealth and Democracy . Between 1920 and 1980, American plutocrats had been placed in fear by the Bolshevik revolution, humbled by the Great Depression, and shamed by the Second World War. Greed was in check. Then they died-off and left their wealth to a new generation more interested in emulating Mick Jagger than Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ronnie Reagan was their Hollywood pal, who cut estate and coupon-clipping taxes so that they could party like rock stars.

    Crass punks like Donald Trump and the Kochs are the scions of inherited wealth and Studio 54. They could never have made it on their own, on their own talents, and it is in their class interest to destroy any sort of meritocracy. They have used materialism and greed to buy the political class.

    Reply
    Advance , February 4, 2017 at 11:21 am

    Look up Geert Hofstede's work on "power distance," which is the extent to which a nation accepts inequality.

    According to Hofstede, countries have different "tastes" or preferences for inequality. For example, the Middle East, parts of S America, India, and other parts of Asia have a much bigger "taste" for inequality compared to, say, the Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest.

    I would guess that differences in preferences for inequality between countries go back to a nation's history, and maybe other hard-to-pin down forces and factors.

    The US, according to Hofstede's work, is at the middle point, or a little lower, as to taste for inequality. However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences. In other words, we may be getting more inequality than we like.

    By the way, Hofstede assumes that power distance preference is a fairly durable characteristic of a nation.

    Reply
    UserFriendly , February 4, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    Preference?? Yes, I'm sure the mid east loves inequality, which is why they are known for choosing dictators who quash uprisings as their leaders. And how exactly would I choose egalitarianism here in the US? I can vote for Wall Street and Holly Wood or Wall Street and Exxon Mobil. Which one is the egalitarian one?

    Reply
    Ignacio , February 4, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    "

    However, reading about the recent Gini index leads me to believe that either our preference for inequality is changing [probably not the case, given Trump], or our history is outrunning our preferences.

    "

    What about "power distance" (extent to which a nation accepts inequality) interactions with "distance to power" extent to which a nation influences the powerful.

    Reply
    Sam , February 4, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    According to Ha-Joon Chang, markets are political creations.

    So, yes.

    Reply
    Bernard , February 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm

    "To serve Humans." The cookbook from " the Outer Limits/Twilight Zone" TV series had aliens come to "devour" humans. such a farce!! lol

    when the reality all along has been that's it the Rich who wrote the "Cookbook". Bernay's sauce, once again.

    who would have thunk it! Inequality is the major ingredient.

    Reply
    Anonymous , February 4, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    I've been reading Robert J. Gordon's book, 'The Rise and Fall of American Growth.' Gordon would say that American labor did well from 1870-1970 because of the innovations that drove the economy increased everyone's productivity and the value of their work. Since 1970, productivity has slowed down. It rose again during the decade of the '90s but mostly for knowledge workers, thanks to the internet, spreadsheets, etcetera, but now has continued to slow. That was a recipe for income inequality, and for wealth inequality as well, since the rise of digital industries has increased property values on the coasts and in select inland cities.

    Slowing productivity also increased wealth inequality by facilitating the decline of interest rates. This helps the haves, since their assets are suddenly more valuable.

    Reply
    pretzelattack , February 4, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-ford/is-american-economic-grow_b_9096698.html

    this guy argues that productivity has been decoupled from compensation, and that has driven the rise of inequality.

    off topic, but the krugman review of the book contained the interesting fact that, during the 1880's, wall street was 7 feet deep in manure in some places.

    Reply
    UserFriendly , February 4, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Of course inequality is a political choice. Chosen by the oligarchs who buy the politicians.

    Just like every mainstream economist is choosing to make millions suffer and die every day because excepting MMT would bruise their ego's. That is a choice too.

    Reply
    Ignacio , February 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    I think that inequality is not a political choice directly but a consequence of deregulation or "do nothing" policy. Reducing inequality is a policy choice.

    Reply
    marblex , February 4, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    To quote the very astute Batman11 from ZH:

    𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐬, 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝, 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝." 𝐀𝐝𝐚𝐦 𝐒𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐡, 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

    𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞.

    𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐬, 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐞.

    They soon made the most of the opportunity and removed themselves from any hard work to concentrate on "spiritual matters", i.e. any hocus-pocus they could come up with to elevate them from the masses, e.g. rituals, fertility rights, offering to the gods . etc and to turn the initially small tributes, into extracting all the surplus created by the hard work of the rest.

    The elites became the representatives of the gods
    and they were responsible for the bounty of the earth and the harvests. As long as all the surplus was handed over, all would be well.
    Later they came up with money.

    We pay you to do the work and you give it back to us when you buy things, you live a bare subsistence existence and we take the rest.

    "𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 – 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞." 𝐋𝐞𝐨 𝐓𝐨𝐥𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐲

    𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞.

    A bare subsistence existence ensured the workers didn't die and could reproduce, why give them anymore? The vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

    Basic capitalism was how it all started in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the poor lived in squalor and the rich lived in luxury, the same as it had always been.

    Only organised labour movements got those at the bottom a larger slice of the pie, basic capitalism gives nothing to the people who do the work apart from a bare subsistence existence.

    The wealthy decided they needed to do away with organised labour movements and the welfare state; it was interfering with the natural order where they extract all the surplus.

    2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%

    Nearly there.

    They need a bit more fine tuning at Davos.

    Some of the world's workers are not living a bare subsistence existence.

    𝐀 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝, 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐨-𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦.

    𝐁𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐦.

    𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬.

    𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧?

    𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧.

    Francis Fukuyama talked of the "end of history" and "liberal democracy".

    Liberal democracy was the bringing together of two mutually exclusive ideas.

    Economic liberalism – that enriches the few and impoverishes the many.

    Democracy – that requires the support of the majority.

    Trying to bring two mutually exclusive ideas together just doesn't work.

    The ideas of "Economic Liberalism" came from Milton Freidman and the University of Chicago. It was so radical they first tried it in a military dictatorship in Chile, it wouldn't be compatible with democracy. It took death squads, torture and terror to keep it in place, there was an ethnic cleansing of anyone who still showed signs of any left wing thinking.

    It was tried in a few other places in South America using similar techniques. It then did succeed in a democracy but only by tricking the people into thinking they were voting for something else, severe oppression was needed when they found out what they were getting.

    It brings extreme inequality and widespread poverty everywhere it's tested, they decide it's a system that should be rolled out globally. It's just what they are looking for.

    𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝.

    𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟒 – "𝟖𝟓 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝"

    𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔 – "𝐑𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝟔𝟐 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧"

    𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟕 – 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝'𝐬 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝟓𝟎%

    𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬.

    𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭?

    𝐍𝐚𝐨𝐦𝐢 𝐊𝐥𝐞𝐢𝐧'𝐬 "𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞" 𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬."
    Post by Batman11@ZH

    Reply
    Mitch Ritter , February 4, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Would a for-profit chain of local newspapers whose business model and advertising is built on serving the Portland Business Alliance and Chamber of Commerce interests hire or keep on staff any kind of investigative journalistic team or even an individual columnist\calumnist like recently deceased VILLAGE VOICE early 1980's TRUMP SWAMP WHISTLE-BLOWER WAYNE BARRET (RIP)?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/media/wayne-barrett-dead-village-voice-columnist.html

    What socio-econ OUTCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP 's outsourcing to a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and beginning a series that seems historic in these parts as the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series by dead investigative journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was shortly thereafter taken down off the web under pressure by the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS .

    Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business Serving newspaper group anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast before all trace of the findings of this Moonlighting Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST SEARCHES on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC BLUE PARTY MACHINE in OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor Kate Brown neither of whom in long careers in State Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever reviewed these findings:

    http://portlandtribune.com/uej/343021-222631-moonlighting-ex-reporters-work-aids-investigation

    http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/343183-222766-the-high-cost-of-being-black-in-multnomah-county

    http://portlandtribune.com/politics/unequal-justice/342537

    Keep on doing,
    Punching way above your weight PAMPLIN PAPERS
    making a mockery of outside money-owned OREGONIAN
    and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole
    available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture

    Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
    Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
    Media Discussion Group

    Reply
    Freda Miller , February 4, 2017 at 10:01 pm

    Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically disadvantaged group to be assessed so much more in penalties for minor infractions makes inequality even worse.

    Reply

    TCOMES have resulted in even PAMPLIN MEDIA GROUP 's outsourcing to a non-profit InvestigateWest journalistic venture and beginning a series that seems historic in these parts as the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS series by dead investigative journalist GARY WEBB in the years after Iran-Contra Scandal to uncover the bid-net of BUSINESS and that was shortly thereafter taken down off the web under pressure by the SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS .

    Here's our story, for this twice-a-week Business Serving newspaper group anyway. Get yer Huzzahs in fast before all trace of the findings of this Moonlighting Civil Servant who got the docs via PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST SEARCHES on her own dime and has embarrased the 1-Party so-called PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC BLUE PARTY MACHINE in OREGON beginning with ORACLE LLC Lawsuit-Surrendering ATTORNEY GENERAL Ellen Rosenblum and up to the Governor Kate Brown neither of whom in long careers in State Government in jobs tasked with auditing ever reviewed these findings:

    http://portlandtribune.com/uej/343021-222631-moonlighting-ex-reporters-work-aids-investigation

    http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/343183-222766-the-high-cost-of-being-black-in-multnomah-county

    http://portlandtribune.com/politics/unequal-justice/342537

    Keep on doing,
    Punching way above your weight PAMPLIN PAPERS
    making a mockery of outside money-owned OREGONIAN
    and the so-called alternative weeklies who only make news hole
    available for Lifestyle features on the new Wellness Spa, Tattoo Parlor or Booze\Gourmet venture

    Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Shifters
    Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
    Media Discussion Group

    Freda Miller , February 4, 2017 at 10:01 pm

    Thanks for the links, Mitch. For an economically disadvantaged group to be assessed so much more in penalties for minor infractions makes inequality even worse.

    [Feb 01, 2017] If enacted, the the Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax would likely lead to lengthy litigation at the World Trade Organization

    Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : January 22, 2017 at 08:09 PM , 2017 at 08:09 PM
    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/01/auerbachs-tax-and-clone-wars.html

    January 22, 2017

    Auerbach's Tax and the Clone Wars

    Menzie Chinn * introduces a new asset to economist blogging. Joel Trachtman ** provides an excellent discussion of whether the Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax violates WTO rules concluding that it does. He adds:

    "If enacted, the plan would likely lead to lengthy litigation at the World Trade Organization. A (likely) ruling that the tax is an income tax, and is applied in a discriminatory manner, would mean that exempting exports would be considered an illegal subsidy and taxes on imports an illegal tariff. This could lead to trade sanctions against the U.S. and open the door to counter sanctions and the start of a trade war."

    President Trump strikes me as someone who could care less about WTO rules. And starting a trade war fits his grand design of governance. As Yoda noted:

    "Begun the clone war has"

    President Trump is Lord Palpatine.

    * http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/01/econofact-bringing-facts-and-data-to-policy-debates

    ** http://econofact.org/house-gop-tax-plan-aims-to-boost-competitiveness-might-also-violate-trade-law

    -- PGL

    [Feb 01, 2017] Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality?

    Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dani Rodrik:

    Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality? : The question in the title is perhaps the most important question we confront, and will continue to confront in the years ahead. I discuss my take in this paper .
    Many economists tend to be global-egalitarians and believe borders have little significance in evaluations of justice and equity. From this perspective, policies must focus on enhancing income opportunities for the global poor. Political systems, however, are organized around nation states, and create a bias towards domestic-egalitarianism.
    How significant is the tension between these two perspectives? Consider the China "trade shock." Expanding trade with China has aggravated inequality in the United States, while ameliorating global inequality. This is the consequence of the fact that the bulk of global inequality is accounted for by income differences across countries rather than within countries.
    But the China shock is receding and other low-income countries are unlikely to replicate China's export-oriented industrialization experience. So perhaps the tension is going away?
    Not so fast. The tension is even greater somewhere else: Relaxing restrictions on cross-border labor mobility would have an even stronger positive effect on global inequality, at the cost of adverse effects at the lower end of labor markets in rich economies. On the other hand, international labor mobility has some advantages compared to further liberalizing international trade in goods.
    I discuss these issues and more here .


    Mr. Bill : , January 22, 2017 at 12:39 PM

    Well said, Dani.

    Adam Smith never sited poverty, environmental intransigents, and malliable governments as a desireable " comparative advantage". Quite the opposite.

    TrumpisaJew : , January 22, 2017 at 12:43 PM
    The export model was a credit bubble illusion. It just wasn't sustainable, it was a lie. Now China has massive capital flight.
    anne : , January 22, 2017 at 01:56 PM
    http://rodrik.typepad.com/Is%20Global%20Equality%20the%20Enemy%20of%20National%20Equality.pdf

    January, 2017

    Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality?
    By Dani Rodrik

    Abstract

    The bulk of global inequality is accounted for by income differences across countries rather than within countries. Expanding trade with China has aggravated inequality in some advanced economies, while ameliorating global inequality. But the "China shock" is receding and other low-income countries are unlikely to replicate China's export-oriented industrialization experience. Relaxing restrictions on cross-border labor mobility might have an even stronger positive effect on global inequality. However it also raises a similar tension. While there would likely be adverse effects on low-skill workers in the advanced economies, international labor mobility has some advantages compared to further liberalizing international trade in goods. I argue that none of the contending perspectives -- national-egalitarian, cosmopolitan, utilitarian -- provides on its own an adequate frame for evaluating the consequences.

    [ An excellent and necessary paper for which I am grateful. Now for another reading. ]

    Mr. Bill -> anne... , January 22, 2017 at 03:56 PM
    What is excellent about it ? Please explain.
    anne -> Mr. Bill... , January 22, 2017 at 04:09 PM
    http://rodrik.typepad.com/Is%20Global%20Equality%20the%20Enemy%20of%20National%20Equality.pdf

    January, 2017

    Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality?
    By Dani Rodrik

    Whether one thinks the last quarter century has been good or bad for equity depends critically on whether one takes a national or global perspective. Within nations, inequality has typically risen in rich and poor nations alike. (Latin American countries, where we observe the highest levels of inequality in the world, were the only ones that significantly bucked the trend.) When commentators talk about inequality, this is usually what they have in mind. But there is another way of looking at inequality, which is to disregard national borders and focus on the distribution of income across all households in the world. Analyzed in this way global inequality actually fell sharply over the same period, thanks in large part to the very rapid growth of China and India, the world's two largest developing economies. In fact, this transformation has been so momentous that the contours of the global distribution of income have changed drastically. The two humps in the distribution – reflecting the all-too recent reality of a world divided into two clear segments, one small and rich, the other large and poor – have disappeared, with an emergent global "middle class" filling out the valley between the two humps (Figure 1).

    The bulk of global income equality today is accounted for by income gaps between countries, rather than within them. This explains why economic growth in countries like China and India has a significant positive effect on global equality, even when inequality rises domestically in those countries, as it has done substantially in China's case.

    To drive home the importance of between-country gaps, I sometimes ask my audience the following question: would you rather be rich in a poor country, or poor in a rich country? I tell them to assume they care only about their own income and purchasing power....

    anne -> Mr. Bill... , January 22, 2017 at 04:22 PM
    Among the excellent aspects, the question is raised as to what development means for relatively poor countries in which growth even when significant for a time shuts out much of a population; what has to be sacrificed by the fortunate for growth to be inclusive and as such sustainable; after all among the poorer countries growth has been decidedly subject to disruption for decades now; supposing trade is to be limited as a driver of growth, what then?

    Add then to these questions in reading.

    Think -> anne... , January 22, 2017 at 05:21 PM
    Thank you, Anne. You seem to adhere to a reality that says that the US is an illegitimate society.
    Think -> Think... , January 22, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    Personally, I love the USA. Especially being able to shoot my mouth off.

    Hell. i don't know if its right or wrong.

    JohnH -> anne... , January 22, 2017 at 06:32 PM
    Eight billionaires have as much wealth as half the world's population.
    http://events.tbo.com/news/world/these-8-billionaires-are-as-rich-as-half-the-worlds-population-oxfam-says/2309727

    I would have to conclude that the bulk of global inequality is accounted for by income differences between the 0.1% and the bottom 95%.

    Ashok Hegde -> JohnH... , January 24, 2017 at 07:59 PM
    Ridiculous.

    If people with no wealth continue to procreate at high rates, of course inequality will only grow. The real issue here is population growth. The poor are replicating at high rates, and the wealthy do not. This accounts for the growth of so much of this 'natural' inequality.

    DrDick : , January 22, 2017 at 04:31 PM
    There is a major problem with Rodrik's piece. Between country inequality has been declining steadily since the 1990s, while within country inequality has been increasing since the 1980s. As I keep saying, the only real beneficiaries of globalization have been the wealthy of the world.

    http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_bg_papers/bp_wess2013_svieira1.pdf

    https://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/working-papers/PKWP1303.pdf

    https://unu.edu/media-relations/releases/global-income-inequality-unu-wider-press-release.html#info

    Think -> DrDick... , January 22, 2017 at 04:40 PM
    Well, I agree with you, singing to the choir. My Dad raised seven on the union wage. How can I convince the folks of this simple fact ?
    anne -> Think... , January 22, 2017 at 06:06 PM
    My Dad raised seven on the union wage. How can I convince the folks of this simple fact?

    [ By carefully explaining how this came to pass, the history of family told in context of the times is important. ]

    Think -> anne... , January 23, 2017 at 01:23 AM
    Well, my dear, the truth is so simple that it eludes us. If American families have enough money, they will succeed.

    My Dad was part of the cohort from WW2. They came back and were not about to succumb to those who did so little.I remember, during a strike, him going out with a bat to put an end to the company running scabs. They beat the hell out of them.

    Some things are worth fighting for.

    DrDick -> Think... , January 23, 2017 at 07:25 AM
    Bull. We are of the same generation and the 1950s was a period of almost unprecedented prosperity and upward mobility. Several factors drove this. First was the GI Bill, with free college and low cost home loans for vets. Second was the emergence or expansion of several industries which created a high demand for skilled labor and technical professionals (electronics, aerospace, petrochemicals, etc.). Third was massive government infrastructure investment, like the interstate highway system. Finally, strong unions fighting for the interests of the workers. Violence and bigotry help no one and the Tangerine Turd in the White House will do nothing good for working people.
    Kaleberg : , January 22, 2017 at 05:00 PM
    The problem is that every nation that has ever developed in terms of productive capacity and increased living standards on this here earth of ours has done so by erecting some type of barrier. There really is no other way, at least not one that has been demonstrated to work. The barriers may take different forms and be more or less penetrable, but they remain. Before the turbine and diesel engines, transportation could be considered a barrier, but it is not much of a barrier today.

    One of the big problems we have nowadays is trying to solve problems that are basically too big to be solved, let alone solved simplistically. The nation state, for all its myriad faults, was a driving force for development and our current level of wealth. It was a powerful counter to the multi-nationalism of the feudal era which had an international upper class that was favored over the actually productive urban and trading classes. Encouraging multi-national corporations and coddling world-wide elites by trying to provide them the benefits of development without its political costs has been a formula for disaster.

    realpc : , January 22, 2017 at 06:39 PM
    Nationalism is natural. You either have nations or you have one big all-powerful world government.

    Caring about your own nation first is common sense. Incredible that Trump even has to say it. But in this crazy political environment, it has to be said.

    If you don't put yourself first, you will stop existing. If you don't put your nation first, it will stop existing.

    All software developers understand modular design. Nature is designed modularly, and human society is part of nature.

    We have nations because we are part of nature.

    Sure you can love the whole world if you want. But if you care more about the rest of the world than your own nation, you are nuts. And yes, it is normal to be nuts these days.

    DrDick -> realpc... , January 23, 2017 at 07:27 AM
    "Nationalism is natural"

    Proving once again that you are an idiot who knows nothing. Nationalism is an artificial construct which only emerges in the late 18th-early 19th centuries, and does not spread widely until the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

    river -> DrDick... , January 23, 2017 at 12:34 PM
    I don't know the history between you two, and realpc may in fact be an idiot, but what he said above hardly proves that he is an idiot.

    "nationalism is an artificial construct?" What does that even mean? I presume it means something like what is talked about here: http://ostrovletania.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-nations-artificial-or-natural.html

    http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0500/stories/0503_0106.html

    So here is some quick google information about native american tribes who fought over limited resources. I wonder if that was an artificial construct as well? Or if one tribe fought other tribes to help their own families out. I wonder if a starving neanderthal would share the meat off of a recent kill with a neanderthal not part of his tribe? Would that be an artificial construct? Surely Germany came into existence in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but before that, the groups that became Germany were just as nationalistic as they were after they became Germany . . . they just defined their nation in more limited terms.

    DrDick -> river... , January 23, 2017 at 01:02 PM
    *sigh*
    People pay me good money to teach them about this stuff, but I do not think either of you could pass the entrance exam. Read Benedict Anderson, "Imagined Communities", or the works of E. J. Hobsbawm and T. O. Ranger on nationalism to start with. The truth is that mobile foragers(what all humans were until about 20,000 years ago) are not really very territorial. See the work of Brian Ferguson on the anthropology of warfare.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=CDAWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=hunter+gatherers+not+very+territorial&source=bl&ots=uqmsMIK3Jb&sig=HlrZ1Wr6nPGzsGId__be2XfR9Z4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_j625k9nRAhUY0mMKHU0cDggQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=hunter%20gatherers%20not%20very%20territorial&f=false

    river -> DrDick... , January 23, 2017 at 01:41 PM
    Sorry, I am just a stupid engineer, and make sure that the building that you live and work in will stand up in an earthquake, yet, I am probably too stupid to ever know what you know. But that said, I didn't know that I am stupid, so I will probably ask a question that will make a genius like yourself roll their eyes in disgust that I was ever awarded a degree from an american university . . . but I don't have time to read four different authors on the subject of a simple blog post, so I am going to ask it anyways . . . you said that nationalism is an artificial construct that only came around about 200 years ago, and I came back with some ideas about, if that were the case, then why did different indian tribes battle over scarce resources (and also simply assumed that ancient humans behaved very similar to native american tribes). You rebutted that by insulting my intelligence, pointing me to four obscure academic authors (if I was as cool and as smart as Good Will Hunting, I am sure I would have read and remembered all the authors that you are pointing me to already, but alas, I am not), and then said that up until 20,000 years ago, there was surprisingly little conflict among people. So, what is it, was nationalism something that came about 20,000 years ago, or was it something that came about 200 years ago. And did indian tribes wage wars against each other? If they did, is that a form of nationalism, or is it different? If it is different, explain how.

    IF you are not smart enough to be able to answer these simple questions that support what you have asserted, then I would suggest that you don't go on message boards and insult the intelligence of others!

    anne : , January 22, 2017 at 08:09 PM
    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/01/auerbachs-tax-and-clone-wars.html

    January 22, 2017

    Auerbach's Tax and the Clone Wars

    Menzie Chinn * introduces a new asset to economist blogging. Joel Trachtman ** provides an excellent discussion of whether the Destination-Based Cash Flow Tax violates WTO rules concluding that it does. He adds:

    "If enacted, the plan would likely lead to lengthy litigation at the World Trade Organization. A (likely) ruling that the tax is an income tax, and is applied in a discriminatory manner, would mean that exempting exports would be considered an illegal subsidy and taxes on imports an illegal tariff. This could lead to trade sanctions against the U.S. and open the door to counter sanctions and the start of a trade war."

    President Trump strikes me as someone who could care less about WTO rules. And starting a trade war fits his grand design of governance. As Yoda noted:

    "Begun the clone war has"

    President Trump is Lord Palpatine.

    * http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/01/econofact-bringing-facts-and-data-to-policy-debates

    ** http://econofact.org/house-gop-tax-plan-aims-to-boost-competitiveness-might-also-violate-trade-law

    -- PGL

    anne -> anne... , January 22, 2017 at 08:10 PM
    Nicely done.
    Tom aka Rusty : , January 23, 2017 at 07:09 AM
    Rodrik seems to spend less time with math models and more time engaging with reality.

    Perhaps a model for other economists?

    Robert C Shelburne : , January 23, 2017 at 09:10 AM
    Another good article by Rodrik but a weakness of his analysis is that welfare is assumed to be based upon real income and not relative income with ones "group". Most analyses of welfare find that relative income is quite important. Obviously if one assumes that one's reference group is the world, then the problem goes away; but empirically this is not the case. Assuming that welfare is strongly affected by relative income with a group which is smaller than the world, then global equality is no longer welfare maximizing. Those interested in these issues might be interested in Robert Shelburne, A Utilitarian Analysis of Trade Liberalization, available as a UN working paper.
    river : , January 23, 2017 at 11:05 AM
    Much like how the biggest environmentalist is the one who already has her house built, the economists safely in their ivory tower and comfortable with their tenured positions in academia were more than happy to volunteer the American working class to give up some of their wealth so that people living in extreme property in the developing world could have slightly better positions. I am glad to see that this is what you guys argued for with all of your "free trade" agreements that you pushed for over the last several decades. Sadly, this is exactly what led us to Trump as president.
    reason -> river... , January 24, 2017 at 01:48 AM
    Their models told them precisely that some people would suffer and others gain, but also that with appropriate redistribution everybody could gain. But appropriate redistribution was never forthcoming. Time for a national dividend.
    river -> reason ... , January 24, 2017 at 01:20 PM
    Appropriate redistribution will NEVER be forthcoming. It is so easily demonized, and people don't want redistributed income. They want jobs!

    This is why the Democrats lost. And frankly, this is the whole point of democracy.

    [Feb 01, 2017] WTO is very clear that income taxes cannot discriminate to favour exports

    Notable quotes:
    "... While the WTO process would grind on, protectionist acts by other nations would be licensed immediately. ..."
    Feb 01, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... February 01, 2017 at 11:33 AM , 2017 at 11:33 AM

    Larry Summers:

    "Third, the tax change will harm the global economy in ways that reverberate back to America. It will be seen by other countries and the World Trade Organisation as a protectionist act that violates US treaty obligations.

    Proponents may argue that it should be legal because it is like a value added tax, but the WTO is very clear that income taxes cannot discriminate to favour exports.

    While the WTO process would grind on, protectionist acts by other nations would be licensed immediately."

    http://larrysummers.com/2017/01/08/us-tax-reform-is-vital-but-trumps-plan-is-flawed/

    [Jan 30, 2017] Trivializing problems that comfortable people call attention to is just a variation of Be thankful you have anything at all. which, at the risk of overusing the phrase, is bullshit.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I agree with much of what James F writes but one thing that doesn't sit right with me about him commentary is his implication that if your complaint isn't about an immediate threat to life and limb then your complaint is frivolous. That's bullshit. Immediate threats to life and limb require immediate attention but once those threats are dealt with then what? ..."
    Jan 30, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick : , January 28, 2017 at 06:38 AM
    Two items for your reading pleasure:
    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , January 28, 2017 at 07:08 AM
    +1 for Frank's piece. "Meh." to James F's. His crankiness, while justifiable, doesn't go anywhere.

    Also, to say "Obama was defeated in the Massachusetts senatorial campaign [in 2009, the special election to replace Kennedy]." is to fundamentally misunderstand that race.

    Coakley was a decent AG but utterly inept at connecting with voters. Brown couldn't win a battle of wits with a golden retriever but he was perceived as a nice guy. (Whether he actually is a nice guy is open to debate.)

    Brown's victory wasn't a repudiation of Obama; it was a repudiation of Coakley.

    Chris G -> Chris G ... , January 28, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    I agree with much of what James F writes but one thing that doesn't sit right with me about him commentary is his implication that if your complaint isn't about an immediate threat to life and limb then your complaint is frivolous. That's bullshit. Immediate threats to life and limb require immediate attention but once those threats are dealt with then what?

    Trivializing problems that "comfortable people" call attention to is just a variation of "Be thankful you have anything at all." which, at the risk of overusing the phrase, is bullshit. Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted but be self-aware enough to realize that whatever your position it is it may change.

    PS James F writes:

    "We [people in flyover country] provide commodities like food and coal and oil and metals."

    Providing coal and oil may be a near-term necessity but it's not doing anyone - "comfortable people", "deplorables" or otherwise - any long-term favors. That you have acute concerns which you need to deal with is not an excuse to turn a blind eye to your impact on the world. It may be a reason but it is not an excuse.

    Julio -> Chris G ... , January 28, 2017 at 11:41 PM
    I agree with your take on both articles.

    On the Mass race, i think the failure of Democrats to fight with all their guns for the 60th Senate seat was a major failure. They were not willing to send their big guns to say "we cannot afford a 40th Republican, no matter how nice he is".

    [Jan 23, 2017] Give Trump a Chance by Eamonn Fingleton

    From amazon review of his book In the Jaws of the Dragon "Anyone who has read "The World is Flat" should also read "In The Jaws Of The Dragon" to understand both sides of the issues involved in offshoring. Eamon Fingleton clearly defines the differences between the economic systems in play in China and Japan and the United States and how those differences have damaged the United States economy. The naive position taken by both the Republicans and the Democrats that offshoring is good for America is shown to be wrong because of a fundamental lack of knowledge about who we are dealing with. Every member of Congress and the executive branch should read this book before ratifying any more trade agreements. The old saying of the marketplace applies: Take advantage of me once, shame on you. Take advantage of me twice, shame on me."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed their views to be shaped largely by the American press. ..."
    "... That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
    "... Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism. ..."
    "... In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. ..."
    "... As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than the press makes out. ..."
    "... So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability. ..."
    "... In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." ..."
    "... other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes from fed-up middle Americans. ..."
    "... In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital evidence in the Kovaleski affair. ..."
    Jan 23, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Battlefield communications in World War I sometimes left something to be desired. Hence a famous British anecdote of a garbled word-of-mouth message. As transmitted, the message ran, "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance." Superior officers at the other end, however, were puzzled to be told: "Send three and four-pence [three shillings and four-pence], we are going to a dance!"

    Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed their views to be shaped largely by the American press.

    That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003.

    Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism.

    Now as Trump embarks on office, his true attitudes are becoming obvious – and they hardly lean towards neo-Nazism.

    In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. Trump even wants to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This position is a favourite of the most ardently pro-Israel section of the American Jewish community but is otherwise disavowed as insensitive to Palestinians by most American policy analysts.

    Many other examples could be cited of how the press has distorted the truth. It is interesting to revisit in particular the allegation that Trump mocked a disabled man's disability. It is an allegation which has received particular prominence in the press in Europe. But is Trump really such a heartless ogre? Hardly.

    As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than the press makes out. The disabled-man episode began when, in defending an erstwhile widely ridiculed contention that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed a 2001 newspaper account broadly backed him up. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred. Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he wrote, was an exaggeration.

    Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had succumbed to political correctness.

    So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability.

    Trump's plea that he hadn't known that Kovaleski was handicapped was undermined when it emerged that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower. That is an experience I know something about. I, like Kovaleski, once interviewed Trump in Trump Tower. The occasion was an article I wrote for Forbes magazine in 1982. If Trump saw my by-line today, would he remember that occasion 35 years ago? Probably not. The truth is that Trump, who has been a celebrity since his early twenties, has been interviewed by thousands of journalists over the years. A journalist would have to be seriously conceited – or be driven by a hidden agenda – to assume that a VIP as busy as Trump would remember an occasion half a lifetime ago.

    In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies his tough-guy exterior), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. In effect Trump is saying he had a strong self-interest in not offending the disabled lobby let alone their millions of sympathisers.

    After all it was not as if there were votes in dissing the disabled. This stands in marked contrast to other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes from fed-up middle Americans.

    In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital evidence in the Kovaleski affair.

    For a start Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to arthrogryposis. Far from frantically flailing their arms, arthrogryposis victims are uncommonly motionlessness. This is because relevant bones are fused together. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the media should have been expected to have been chomping at the bit to interview Kovaleski and thus clinch the point about how ruthlessly Trump had ridiculed a disabled man's disability.

    The website added: "If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have no story."

    Catholics 4 Trump added that, in the same speech in which Trump did his Kovaleski impression, he offered an almost identical performance to illustrate the embarrassment of a U.S. general with whom he had clashed. In particular Trump had the general wildly flailing his arms. It goes without saying that this general does not suffer from arthogryposis or any other disability. The common thread in each case was merely an embarrassed, backtracking person. To say the least, commentators in Europe who have portrayed Trump as having mocked Kovaleski's disability stand accused of superficial, slanted reporting.

    All this is not to suggest that Trump does not come to the presidency unencumbered with baggage. He is exceptionally crude – at least he is in his latter-day reality TV manifestation (the Trump I remember from my interview in 1982 was a model of restraint by comparison and in particular never used any expletives). Moreover the latter-day Trump habit of picking Twitter fights with those who criticize him tends merely to confirm a widespread belief that he is petty and thin-skinned.

    Many of his pronouncements moreover have been disturbing and his abrasive manner will clearly prove on balance a liability in the White House. That said, the press has never worked harder or more dishonestly to destroy a modern American leader.

    Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, therefore, as he sets out to make America great again. The truth is that American decline has gone much further than almost anyone outside American industry understands. Trump's task is a daunting one.

    Eamonn Fingleton is an expert on America's trade problems and is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity (Houghton Mifflin, Boston). A version of this article appeared in the Dublin Ireland Sunday Business Post.

    America's fate looks dicey in the showdown with the Chinese juggernaut, warns this vigorous jeremiad. Fingleton (In Praise of Hard Industries) argues that China's "East Asian" development model of aggressive mercantilism and a state-directed economy "effortlessly outperforms" America's fecklessly individualistic capitalism

    [Jan 22, 2017] Is Global Equality the Enemy of National Equality

    Notable quotes:
    "... You can't get something from nothing but, believe it or not, the money is there, somewhere to make $10 jobs into $20. Bottom 45% of earners take 10% of overall income; down from 20% since 1980 (roughly -- worst be from 1973 but nobody seems to use that); top 1% take 20%; double the 10% from 1980. ..."
    "... Top 1% share doubled -- of 50% larger pie! ..."
    "... One of many remedies: majority run politics wont hesitate to transfer a lot of that lately added 10% from the 1% back to the 54% who now take 70% -- who can transfer it on down to the 45% by paying higher retail prices -- with Eisenhower level income tax. In any case per capita income grows more than 10% over one decade to cover 55%-to-45% income shifting. ..."
    "... Not to mention other ways -- multiple efficiencies -- to get multiple-10%'s back: squeezing out financialization; sniffing out things like for-profit edus (unions providing the personnel quantity necessary to keep up with society's many schemers; snuffing out $100,000 Hep C treatments that cost $150 to make (unions supplying the necessary volume of lobbying and political financing; less (mostly gone) poverty = mostly gone crime and its criminal justice expenses. ..."
    "... IOW, labor unions = a normal country. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Denis Drew : January 22, 2017 at 02:01 PM
    Simple, adequate if not perfect -- but adequate -- answer -- in any rate the only answer by now -- to losing manufacturing jobs to outsourcing or automation:

    Doubling of per capita income since 1968 -- when fed min wage was $11 -- means the labor market will support; means the ultimate consumer will pony up for a high enough price: to allow most jobs (e.g., stacking shelves at WalMart) to pay $20 (jobs that now pay $10).

    THE MONEY IS THERE SOMEWHERE

    You can't get something from nothing but, believe it or not, the money is there, somewhere to make $10 jobs into $20. Bottom 45% of earners take 10% of overall income; down from 20% since 1980 (roughly -- worst be from 1973 but nobody seems to use that); top 1% take 20%; double the 10% from 1980.

    Top 1% share doubled -- of 50% larger pie!

    One of many remedies: majority run politics wont hesitate to transfer a lot of that lately added 10% from the 1% back to the 54% who now take 70% -- who can transfer it on down to the 45% by paying higher retail prices -- with Eisenhower level income tax. In any case per capita income grows more than 10% over one decade to cover 55%-to-45% income shifting.

    Not to mention other ways -- multiple efficiencies -- to get multiple-10%'s back: squeezing out financialization; sniffing out things like for-profit edus (unions providing the personnel quantity necessary to keep up with society's many schemers; snuffing out $100,000 Hep C treatments that cost $150 to make (unions supplying the necessary volume of lobbying and political financing; less (mostly gone) poverty = mostly gone crime and its criminal justice expenses.

    IOW, labor unions = a normal country.

    ALSO HEALTH CARE IS GROWING BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS AND CAN TAKE UP MANUFACTURING'S SLACK.

    Males need to be less afraid of formerly "feminine" rolls like nurse. Was in urgent-care walk in last week -- nurses or something like: one, big guy with dagger into skull tattoo on one forearm, "RESPECT" on other. Other looked very male too. Health care conveniently for labor market spread evenly everywhere -- hopefully to be covered by gov (next Dem Congress).

    HERE'S HOW TO UNION-UP

    America should feel perfectly free to rebuild labor union density one state at a time -- making union busting a felony. Republicans will have no place to hide.

    Suppose the 1935 Congress passed the NLRA(a) intending to leave any criminal sanctions for obstructing union organizing to the states. Might have been because NLRB(b) conducted union elections take place local by local (not nationwide) and Congress could have opined states would deal more efficiently with home conditions -- or whatever. What extra words might Congress have needed to add to today's actual bill? Actually, today's identical NLRA wording would have sufficed perfectly.

    Suppose, again, that under the RLA (Railroad Labor Act -- covers railroads and airlines, FedEx) -- wherein elections are conducted nationally -- that Congress desired to forbid states criminalizing the firing of organizers -- how could Congress have worded such a preemption (assuming it was constitutionally valid)? Shouldn't matter to us. Congress did not!

    Note well: it is not mostly the organizer's job loss to be punished; it is much more the interference with all employees' bargaining power -- working them for less.

    For more musings on what and how else to dump the Trump boys by banging loudly and everywhere on the labor union drum, see here (work permanently in progress): http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html

    Ann; you know often I do 4,000-5,000 spam mails -- mostly journalists, state legislators, unions -- if I get one or two click-backs of something of my own that's good.

    This one I only sent out maybe 2,000 -- concentrated mostly on Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota -- and this week got an unheard of 80 click-backs on this link (hopefully some looked at the blog too).

    So, maybe something's stirring. So try to relax -- all in fun. :-) Planning to blanket every state -- may take couple of months.

    anne -> Denis Drew ... , January 22, 2017 at 02:15 PM
    I will always support your work, even if I complain.
    anne -> Denis Drew ... , January 22, 2017 at 02:17 PM
    http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html

    December 16, 2016

    Wet backs and narrow backs (Irish immigrants' native born kiddies)
    By Denis Drew

    [Jan 21, 2017] http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-says-davos-elite-are-concerned-because-public-doesn-t-buy-their-lies-anymore

    Jan 21, 2017 | cepr.net

    January 20, 2017

    NYT Says Davos Elite Are Concerned Because Public Doesn't Buy Their Lies Anymore

    The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify upward redistribution of income. It told readers:

    "At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....

    "The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade, China is taking up the mantle....

    "The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared a 'middle-class crisis.' "

    Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other recent trade pacts.

    The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.

    Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.

    The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not likely to help their case much.

    Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).

    * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/dealbook/world-economic-forum-davos-finance.html

    ** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    -- Dean Baker Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution of income.

    They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated conservatives with the same medicine.

    And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the country.

    That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.

    Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost its effectiveness.

    Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.

    This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.

    Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 07:54 AM

    libezkova said in reply to anne...

    The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his article titled, The Structure of Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America."

    He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today."

    The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

    During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

    During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

    As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

    [Jan 21, 2017] NYT Says Davos Elite Are Concerned Because Public Doesn't Buy Their Lies Anymore

    Jan 20, 2017 | cepr.net

    The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify upward redistribution of income. It told readers:

    "At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....

    "The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade, China is taking up the mantle....

    "The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared a 'middle-class crisis.' "

    Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other recent trade pacts.

    The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.

    Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.

    The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not likely to help their case much.

    Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).

    * https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/dealbook/world-economic-forum-davos-finance.html

    ** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

    -- Dean Baker Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution of income.

    They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated conservatives with the same medicine.

    And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the country.

    That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.

    Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost its effectiveness.

    Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.

    This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.

    Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 07:54 AM

    libezkova said in reply to anne...

    http://www.unz.com/article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything-on-the-2016-us-election/

    == quote ==

    The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his article titled, The Structure of Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America."

    He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today."

    The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

    During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

    During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

    As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Political sciences Theory of Everything on the 2016 US Election - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America." ..."
    "... He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today." ..."
    "... During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. ..."
    "... At the time this was the highest level internal US intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see the Islamic State as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The military faction began a steady stream of "one-sided" leaks to Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh who published one article after another that undermined the political (Obama administration) and corporate (CIA and intelligence) factions of the power elite, while painting the military faction in a positive light. ..."
    "... The first article entitled Whose Sarin? was published on 19 December, 2013 and concerned the East Ghouta sarin gas attack of August 21, 2013. Hersh documents a clear campaign within the power elite's military faction to "foot-drag" and hopefully block the planned US retaliation for crossing President Obama's "red line": "[S]ome members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were troubled by the prospect of a ground invasion of Syria as well as by Obama's professed desire to give rebel factions non-lethal support. In July, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, provided a gloomy assessment, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee in public testimony that 'thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces' would be needed to seize Syria's widely dispersed chemical warfare arsenal, along with 'hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines and other enablers'." ..."
    "... A cornered Obama welcomed a draft UN resolution calling on the Assad government to get rid of its chemical arsenal. The political faction's step-down pleased many senior military officers, explains Hersh: "One high-level special operations adviser told me that the ill-conceived American missile attack on Syrian military airfields and missile emplacements, as initially envisaged by the White House, would have been 'like providing close air support for al-Nusra'." ..."
    "... General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs had irritated many in the Obama administration by repeatedly warning Congress over the summer of the danger of American military involvement in Syria. The military faction also had the advantage of a British intelligence report of a sample of sarin, recovered by Russian military intelligence operatives, proving it was not from the Syrian army. Further suspicions were aroused within the military faction when more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with two kilograms of sarin. Hersh quotes his internal military source: "'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'" ..."
    "... Further revelations included how the Obama administration, through the CIA, had by early 2012 created a "rat line", a back channel highway into Syria, used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to jihadists, some of them affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
    "... Hersh's source explains how a Senate Intelligence Committee report on the assault by a local militia on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others in September 2012, revealed a secret agreement for the "rat line" reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations: "By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria." ..."
    "... After Washington abruptly ended the CIA's role in the transfer of arms from Libya the "rat line" continued and became more ominous: "'The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,' the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels." ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    The corporate-deep-state theory

    In a recent UNZ article titled: Political science's "theory of everything" a concise map of the US establishment, both the visible and invisible government was mapped. Based on this map a theory emerged that showed how the visible government has been subverted by an invisible unelected government that was described as a corporate-deep-state. The levels of the US establishment were identified as a power elite conspiratorial leadership overseeing a corporatocracy and directing a deep state that has gradually subverted the visible US government and taken over the "levers of power."

    The power elite

    The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his article titled, The Structure of Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America."

    He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today."

    The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

    During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

    During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

    As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

    The covert invasion of Syria

    A US Pentagon, DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.

    Astoundingly, the declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ".

    The document shows that as early as 2012, US intelligence predicted the rise of the Salafist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.

    At the time this was the highest level internal US intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see the Islamic State as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The military faction began a steady stream of "one-sided" leaks to Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh who published one article after another that undermined the political (Obama administration) and corporate (CIA and intelligence) factions of the power elite, while painting the military faction in a positive light.

    Whose sarin?

    The first article entitled Whose Sarin? was published on 19 December, 2013 and concerned the East Ghouta sarin gas attack of August 21, 2013. Hersh documents a clear campaign within the power elite's military faction to "foot-drag" and hopefully block the planned US retaliation for crossing President Obama's "red line": "[S]ome members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were troubled by the prospect of a ground invasion of Syria as well as by Obama's professed desire to give rebel factions non-lethal support. In July, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, provided a gloomy assessment, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee in public testimony that 'thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces' would be needed to seize Syria's widely dispersed chemical warfare arsenal, along with 'hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines and other enablers'."

    A cornered Obama welcomed a draft UN resolution calling on the Assad government to get rid of its chemical arsenal. The political faction's step-down pleased many senior military officers, explains Hersh: "One high-level special operations adviser told me that the ill-conceived American missile attack on Syrian military airfields and missile emplacements, as initially envisaged by the White House, would have been 'like providing close air support for al-Nusra'."

    The Red Line and the Rat Line

    The second article titled The Red Line and the Rat Line was published on 17 April, 2014 and explains why Obama delayed and then relented on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya: "The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration (political faction) who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous."

    General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs had irritated many in the Obama administration by repeatedly warning Congress over the summer of the danger of American military involvement in Syria. The military faction also had the advantage of a British intelligence report of a sample of sarin, recovered by Russian military intelligence operatives, proving it was not from the Syrian army. Further suspicions were aroused within the military faction when more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with two kilograms of sarin. Hersh quotes his internal military source: "'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'"

    Further revelations included how the Obama administration, through the CIA, had by early 2012 created a "rat line", a back channel highway into Syria, used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to jihadists, some of them affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

    Hersh's source explains how a Senate Intelligence Committee report on the assault by a local militia on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others in September 2012, revealed a secret agreement for the "rat line" reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations: "By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria."

    After Washington abruptly ended the CIA's role in the transfer of arms from Libya the "rat line" continued and became more ominous: "'The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,' the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels."

    The Killing of Osama bin Laden

    The third article titled The Killing of Osama bin Laden was published on 17 April, 2014. The Obama administration needed a public relations win on the eve of his second term election and according to Hersh's military source: "'the killing of bin Laden was political theatre designed to burnish Obama's military credentials.'"

    Hersh's article goes on to systematically debunk the Obama administration's entire clumsy cover story while implicating the Saudis and Pakistanis who financed and protected Osama bin Laden. He goes on to reveal that once he had outlived his usefulness, to the Pakistanis, he was traded to the Americans who murdered him in cold blood and tossed his mutilated body parts over the Hindu Kish mountains.

    The article further reveals how the Senate Intelligence Committee's long-delayed report on CIA torture, released in December 2013 concluded that the CIA lied systematically about the effectiveness of its torture programme in gaining intelligence that would stop future terrorist attacks in the US.

    Military to Military

    Hersh's fourth article titled Military to Military was published on 7 January 2016, and details how an exasperated military faction continued to repeat warnings that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to Libyan style chaos and, potentially, to Syria's takeover by jihadi extremists. They were continuously ignored by both the political faction and the intelligence services: "[A]lthough many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming General Dempsey and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept their dissent out of bureaucratic channels, and survived in office. General Michael Flynn did not. 'Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria,' said Patrick Lang, a retired army colonel who served for nearly a decade as the chief Middle East civilian intelligence officer for the DIA. 'He thought truth was the best thing and they shoved him out. He wouldn't shut up.' Flynn told me his problems went beyond Syria. 'I was shaking things up at the DIA – and not just moving deckchairs on the Titanic. It was radical reform. I felt that the civilian leadership did not want to hear the truth. I suffered for it, but I'm OK with that.'"

    Hersh's paper further highlights a rebellion under the leadership of Joint Chiefs of Staff that was then led by General Martin Dempsey. He began to send a flow of US intelligence through allied militaries to the Syrian Arab Army and he orchestrated a deliberate plan to downgrade the quality of the arms being supplied to the rebels by the CIA The military's indirect pathway to Assad disappeared with Dempsey's retirement in September 2015. The political faction then replaced Dempsey, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with General Joseph Dunford who advocated a "hard line" on Russia.

    The power elite's military faction realised that radical reform could not begin until the military faction had full political support behind them.

    Rise of the Generals

    In the 2016 US election Trump with the full weight of the military faction behind him pulled off a stunning victory against the entire political faction – defeating both the Democratic and Republican Party machines – and the corporate media.

    The cornerstone of the corporatocracy, the Wall Street lobby, due to the sheer amount of fiat petrodollar based money it generates, and the influence it has over the US establishment was officially dethroned. The locus of power within the power elite had suddenly and dramatically shifted from Wall St to the Pentagon.

    Although the situation is very fluid on the eve of the Trump presidency a map highlighting the US establishment entities supporting either Trump or his defeated opponent Clinton can be arguably mapped below.

    Trump quickly named security hardliners including past and present generals and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions while the corporate media accused Trump of having a starry-eyed fascination with the brass of America's losing wars.

    Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was forced from his position as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, will be President-elect Donald Trump's national security adviser. Army retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg will be serving in a supporting capacity to Flynn as chief of staff of the National Security Council (NSC).

    Trump selected retired General James Mattis to lead the Department of Defense. Mattis, a documented war criminal , had helped cover up the 2005 Haditha massacre of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians by US soldiers. His soldiers also directly committed war crimes in the US sieges of Fallujah in 2004, when his forces not only used white phosphorus but fired on and killed up to 5,000 innocent civilians. General Mattis has called for a "new security architecture for the Mideast built on sound policy Iran is a special case that must be dealt with as a threat to regional stability, nuclear and otherwise." On a positive Mattis also got Trump to reconsider his stance on torture stating, "'I've never found it to be useful."

    General John Kelly, another long-serving Marine with a reputation for bluntness, has been picked to head the Department of Homeland Security. He is the most senior US officer to have lost a child in the "war on terror". His son Robert, a first lieutenant in the marines, was killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2010. He therefore strongly opposed efforts by the Obama administration to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, claiming that the remaining detainees were "all bad boys," both guilty and dangerous.

    And in selecting career military men like Flynn, Mattis and Kelly as his senior civilian advisers on military matters, Trump is in essence strengthening defense while creating rival intelligence entities that will remain loyal to his military faction.

    Meanwhile Big Oil's Rex Tillerson - the former CEO of world's largest oil company, ExxonMobil - is to be Secretary of State. He has a two-decade relationship with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, who awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship in 2013.

    Mindful of others who defied the US establishment, Trump's supporters delivered an ominous warning to rival power elite factions that should Trump be assassinated then a civil war would follow. In reality an assassination in today's climate, without the support of the corporatocracy's now discredited media, would usher in martial law and further ensconce the military faction within their seat of power.

    Playing chess like Putin

    Trump and his military faction appear to greatly admire Putin personally, and in September 2016 during the NBC Commander-in-Chief Forum Trump stated: "I will tell you that, in terms of leadership, he's getting an 'A' and our president is not doing so well." Trump's military faction, unlike the other two factions sees Russia as more of a partner than an adversary and he is deeply committed to reorienting American foreign policy in a pro-Russian direction.

    Trump knows Putin's history well and appears intent on following in his footsteps. Putin took office by striking a deal with Russia's political elite to protect former Russian President Yeltsin and his family from prosecution in exchange for Putin becoming Prime Minister and later President.

    Then on July 28, 2000, after they had funded his election campaign, Vladimir Putin gathered the 18 most powerful businessmen (corporatocracy) in Russia and denounced the corporate elite as creators of a corrupt state. During the transition from Communism in the 1990s these oligarchs – the majority Jewish – had taken control of every single lever of power in Russia including the central bank, the mass media and even the Kremlin.

    In a second meeting on January 24, 2001, Vladimir Putin met with 21 leading oligarchs and stressed that the Russian state had no plans to re-nationalize the economy, but added that they should have "a feeling of responsibility [to] the people and the country" and asked them to donate $2.6 million to a fund he was setting up to help families of soldiers wounded or killed in action.

    True to his word the oligarchs that complied were allowed to keep the money they had looted from the Russian people. Those that didn't comply, like Berezovsky and Gusinsky, Russia's two most infamous and hated oligarchs, were gradually pushed out, and in some cases even imprisoned.

    After defeating the oligarchs and gaining control of their media Putin then began to methodically cleanse the Russian government and the Kremlin of corporate influence.

    Corporatocracy

    Professor Jeffry Sachs calls the US corporate conspiracy The Rigged Game in which the political system has come to be controlled by powerful corporate interest groups – the "corporatocracy" – who dominate the policy agenda. Sachs explains how "[a] healthy economy is a mixed economy, in which government and the marketplace both play their role. Yet the federal government has neglected its role for three decades."

    President Trump appears to have taken a page from Sach's book and, even before taking office, is signalling that his government will not neglect its role.

    During an interview with Fortune on April 19, 2016, Donald Trump explicitly explained how he planned on taking back the economic "levers of power" from Wall Street's Federal Reserve by supporting: "proposals that would take power away from the Fed, and allow Congress to audit the U.S. central bank's decision making."

    On December, 6, 2016 it was the military industrial complex's Boeing that felt the brunt of his attack when President-elect Donald Trump called for the scrapping of multi-billion dollar plans for Boeing to build a new Air Force One, calling the costs "ridiculous and totally out of control." He then followed this up on December 12, 2016, when he took on the Lockheed Martin by attacking the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on Twitter, saying the cost of the next-generation stealth plane is "out of control," stating: "Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th."

    In an early December interview with TIME ahead of his selection as TIME's Person of the Year, Trump railed against the Healthcare lobby when he stated that he doesn't "like what's happened with drug prices" and that he will "bring down" the cost of prescription medication.

    Even earlier, on January 2016, at Liberty University, Trump had startled Silicon Valley when he promised to punish companies that offshore production by placing tariffs on their imports coming back to the US: "We're going to get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

    The Big Oil lobby, initially ambivalent, now appears to have put its weight behind Trump. There are signs that the Big Oil lobby may have fallen out with the corporatocracy over the economic sanctions on Russia and access to its vast untapped oil fields, as well as Saudi Arabia's two years of flooding the global market with cheap crude in order to drive oil prices down and economically damage the Russian economy. This policy had made both US shale oil and US energy independence unsustainable.

    While the corporatocracy will survive, the days of crony capitalism appear to be coming to an end.

    The death of neoliberalism

    The Trump election, much like Brexit before it, signals an entirely new development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under President Reagan over 40 years ago. Trump has promised to end the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation ideology in which the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the corporatocracy that has been encouraged to invest around the world depriving Americans of their jobs.

    The global financial crisis of 2008, the worst since the great depression of 1931, saw Wall Street bailed out by the taxpayers while the responsible bankers were not prosecuted for their crimes. Under the Obama administration this was further compounded by rejecting bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality, militarisation, covert operations and the facilitating of overseas war crimes.

    Meanwhile, nine years on, the neoliberal practice of quantitative easing has failed to revive the economic patient who remains on "life support." This after effect of the global financial crisis has served to undermine the peoples' faith and trust in the competence of the power elite's political faction and the corporate media. Trump's ascendency thus signals the beginning of the end of the neoliberal era.

    Trumps promise to, "Put America first," pulls the plug on neoliberalism's economic life support and imposes a new era of economic nationalism. The military faction will abandon unfettered capitalism, free trade agreements and globalisation in favour of de-globalisation, economic nationalism, rebuilding of infrastructure, the middle class and manufacturing.

    The table below is fluid but is based on current policy details, revealed by Trump, and details how the current neoliberal policies may gradually shift to policies of economic nationalism.

    Government departments Masses' Policies Neo-Liberal Policies Economic nationalism Policies Corporatocracy lobbies
    Dept. of State Establishment of friendly relations with other nations. Maintenance of the petrodollar through the support of compliant authoritarian nations or covert funding of unstable extremists to overthrow non-compliant nations Maintenance of the petrodollar through the support of compliant authoritarian nations. Multilateral approach of working with Russia while continuing to isolate China and Iran Wall Street-Washington complex
    Dept. of the Treasury Lower and fairer tax system that incentivises workers and savers Financialisation, corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and overseas tax havens. nationalisation, cutting of corporate subsidies, closing of tax loopholes and overseas tax havens.
    Dept. of Commerce Open trade and protection of key industries "Free" trade Agreements (Inc. TTP & TTIP), Economic sanctions protectionism, tariffs, economic sanctions
    Dept. of Justice Universal human rights, equal justice and fair trials Non-prosecution of criminal bank leaders, with prosecution of deep state whistle blowers. Prosecution of corporate crime, Non-prosecution of military and police crimes, continued prosecution of deep state whistle blowers.
    Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Affordable and easily accessible housing. Financialisation, housing speculation and homelessness. Removal of "red tape", opening up of land for building
    Dept. of Defense Security and Defense of citizens against foreign enemies Maintenance of the petrodollar, full spectrum dominance, exceptionalism, war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy . Maintenance of the petrodollar, full spectrum dominance, multi-polarity, war on terrorism military-industrial complex
    Dept. of Veterans Affairs Support and subsidies for veterans Cheap outsourced care facilities and abandoned veterans. Renationalisation of care facilities and housing, medical and mental care for war veterans.
    Dept. of Transport Electric vehicles, subsidised transport and easily accessible transportation grid. Subsidised car-centric policies and urban planning. Subsidised car-centric policies and urban planning. Big Oil-transport-military complex
    Dept. of Energy Environmental protection, reliable and nationalised mostly renewable energy supply. Subsidised fossil fuel energy dependence and debunking of climate change. Subsidised fossil fuel energy dependence and debunking of climate change.
    Dept. of the Interior Management and conservation federal land and natural resources. Waiving of environmental protection, access for sea lanes, pipelines, mining and resource extraction. Waiving of environmental protection, access for sea lanes, pipelines, mining and resource extraction.
    Dept. of Health & Human Services Subsidised and universal Healthcare. mandatory healthcare and privatisation. privatised healthcare Healthcare industry
    Dept. of Homeland Security Security and Privacy. Mass Surveillance and copyright enforcement. Mass Surveillance Silicon Valley
    Dept. of Agriculture Healthy, nutritious and affordable food. Food monopolisation and dependence through patented GMOs. Breaking up of monopolies, increased competition. Big Ag (Monsanto)
    Dept. of Education Subsidised and universal education. Class-based privatisation and outsourcing. Increased investment in education. Organised Labor
    Dept. of Labor Jobs and decent wages. Outsourcing, mass immigration to lower wages, commodification of Labor, deregulation, deindustrialisation, under employment and unemployment. Reshoring, border controls to boost wages, return of skilled labor, reregulation, reindustrialisation, full employment, lower taxes All lobbies

    Monetary hegemony strategy

    The power elite's monetary hegemony petrodollar strategy will remain unchanged under Trumps' military faction. However, Trump's foreign policy signals the end of America's unipolar moment, the period that was called the "new world order" by George Bush after the collapse of the former USSR and the US's 1991 Gulf War victory.

    It took the actions of former rogue CIA operatives, called Al Qaeda, to give the US an excuse to invade and conquer key economic chokepoints and geopolitical pivot nations, in the heart of the world's oil reserves that would give the power elite global economic and military dominance. These power elite plans were given to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the time, and documented in a memo that a puzzled senior staff officer showed to General Wesley Clark:"[W]e're going to take out seven countries in five years , starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

    The Republican-led neoconservative "war on terror" phase, that took place from 2001 to 2011, symbolised the overt US invasion, occupation and destruction of primarily Afghanistan and Iraq. When worldwide condemnation combined with Iraqi military resistance proved too great, the power elite were forced to switch to more covert means.

    Under the new Obama administration, a Democratic-led, CIA-orchestrated "Arab Spring" took place from 2011-2016 and symbolised the covert invasion of Libya and Syria using reconstituted terrorist death squads. The power elite had not only used the 9/11 attack conducted by elements of their rogue terrorist death squads to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but they were now going to reconstitute a compliant group of the same terrorists and use them to covertly invade Libya and Syria.

    With the Syrian government's capture of Aleppo in late 2016, it became apparent to all observers that both the overt and covert US invasions were soundly defeated primarily by heroic resistance forces in Iraq and Syria, respectively.

    With the barbaric US invasions blunted, the Trump administration now represents a rear-guard attempting to hold onto key nations in the heart of the world's global energy reserves and maintain the US's petrodollar monetary hegemony backing, while Trump transitions his economy from a financial to an industrial economy. Trump will thus continue to secure the GCC nations, especially Saudi Arabia, provided they reign in their terrorist death squads, plaguing the Middle East. Israel will also be fully supported and used to maintain the current Middle Eastern stalemate against Iran.

    It is however Trump's détente with Russia that is truly significant as it signals the end of the unipolar "new world order." Russia will once again be allowed its own "sphere of influence." This will most likely see Crimean reunification accepted the return of economically plundered Ukraine to Russian influence and the Russian presence in Syria acknowledged.

    In return the military faction wants to desperately break up the tripartite strategic Eurasian team of Russia-China-Iran. The military faction wants Russia to help block China's rise in the South China Sea and to contain Iran. The military faction appears to have been inspired by documented war criminal, Henry Kissinger, who at the Primakov lecture in February 2016 stated: "The long-term interests of both countries call for a world that transforms the contemporary turbulence and flux into a new equilibrium which is increasingly multipolar and globalized ..Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States." Draining the swamp?

    For the first time in memory the US establishment, consisting of the visible US Government and the invisible corporate-deep-state that has subverted it, have had a dramatic schism. Contrary to corporate media hand-wringing, the 2016 US election for the masses was never about a choice for Trump over Clinton, it was in reality a choice of, the same united power elite maintaining the same US establishment under President select Clinton, versus a divided power elite led by Trump's military faction.

    This seminal moment represents a change of both US strategy and tactics that have been used to maintain the US's economic and military power.

    Strategically, while the power elite have finally abandoned America's unipolar moment, they will now maintain the US as a multipolar global hegemon receiving its petrodollar tribute. Their plans are to finally grant Russia, but not China, its own "sphere of influence" and to cleave it away from its Eurasian and Middle Eastern allies.

    Economically and tactically neoliberalism, as an ideology, is now officially dead. The power elite's corporatocracy (corporate faction) will be tamed and replaced by a protectionist, localised, rebuilding of America's manufacturing base.

    While not exactly "draining the swamp," the new Trump administration plans on "fencing off some of the alligators" that have devoured so many innocents during 40 years of neoliberalism at home and militarism abroad.

    To listen to a podcast by the author explaining how the political science's "theory of everything" may help to predict the new Trump administration select the following link:

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/around-empire-5-7795251?utm_campaign=postshare&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    [Jan 19, 2017] Davos without Donald Trump is like Hamlet without the prince

    From comments: "Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction." "The biggest cabal of sociopathic criminals the world has ever known."
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s, warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said. ..."
    "... Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone. Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what he likes to call the spirit of Davos. ..."
    "... It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation. They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings. ..."
    "... 'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected.' ..."
    "... Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks. ..."
    "... Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable! ..."
    "... Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction. ..."
    "... Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017; it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid. ..."
    "... What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while paying lip-service to the poor? ..."
    "... One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not a new question. ..."
    "... Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we all rely on but especially citizens. ..."
    "... Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works. ..."
    "... Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership, plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international ones. ..."
    "... My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception. ..."
    "... This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts. After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world and on what steps to take to mitigate it."! ..."
    "... I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the complete destruction of diverse cultures. ..."
    Jan 19, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Trump's influence can also be felt in other ways. The manner in which he won the US election, tapping in to deep-seated anger about the unfair distribution of the spoils of economic growth, has been noted. There is talk in Davos of the need to ensure that globalisation works for everyone.

    This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s, warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said.

    Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone. Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what he likes to call the spirit of Davos.

    It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation. They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings.

    In Trump's absence, it has been left to two senior members of the outgoing Obama administration – his vice-president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state John Kerry – to fly the US flag.

    Just as significantly, Xi Jinping is the first Chinese premier to attend Davos and has made it clear that, unlike Trump, he has no plans to resile from international obligations. The sense of a changing of the guard is palpable.

    missuswatanabe

    It's the way globalisation has been managed for the benefit of the richest in the developed world that has been bad for the masses rather than globalisation itself.

    I thought this was an interesting, if US-centric, perspective on things:

    'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected.'

    http://bostonreview.net/forum/dean-baker-globalization-blame

    Sunny Reneick -> missuswatanabe

    Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks.

    Paul Paterson -> ConBrio

    Decent, hardworking Americans facing social and economic insecurity, whether on the right or left, ought to be the focus. We need to deal with the concerns of the average citizen, however it is they vote. Fringe groups don't serve our attention given tbe very real problems the country faces.

    Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable!

    What we should concern ourselves with is the very real social and economic insecurity felt by many in red states and blue states alike. Those decent and hardworking Americans, regardless of party, are joined in much. Deplorables aren't the average Republican voter and didn't win Trump an election - they are too few to win much of anything.

    What you keep referring to as Deplorables are decent Americans seeking change and socioeconomic justice. You are mixing up citizens who happen to vote for the GOP withbwhite nationalist scum. How dare you tar all conservatives with the hate monger brush!

    Spunky325 -> Paul Paterson

    Actually, before taking office, Trump strong-armed Ford and GM into putting more money in their American plants, instead of moving more production to Mexico. He's also questioned cost-overruns on Air Force One and several military projects which is causing companies to back off. I can't think of another American president who has felt it was important to keep jobs in America or who has questioned military spending. Good for him!

    Paul Paterson -> Spunky325

    You've made it quite clear "you can't think" as you've bought into the ruse. The question is why are you so boastful about it? Trump's policies are even seen by economists on the right as creating staggering levels of debt, creating more economic inequality and unlikely to increase jobs.

    Among many flaws, they point out tax proposals that hurt the poor and middle class to such a degree it almost seems targeted. This is the same economic plot that has failed working Americans repeatedly. You folks are getting caught up in a time share pitch and embracing policy that has little chance to help the average American - however it is they vote. It isn't supposed to but y'all are asleep at the wheel.

    DrBlamm0

    Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction.

    johhnybgood

    Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017; it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid.

    bilyou

    What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while paying lip-service to the poor?

    Maybe Trump just decided to trough it at his tower and avoid hanging out with a grotesque bunch of insufferable see you next Tuesdays.

    Ricardo_K

    One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not a new question.

    Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we all rely on but especially citizens.

    James Patterson

    Xi's statements on a trade war are completely self serving. But his assertions that he is against protectionism and unfair trading practices is laughably hypocritical. China refuses to let any Silicon Valley Internet company one inch past the Great Firewall. Under his direction the CCP has imposed draconian regulations, which change by the week, on American Companies operating in China making fair competition with local Chinese companies impossible.

    The business climate in China is reprehensible. The CCP has resorted to extortion, requiring that U.S. tech companies share their most sensitive trade secrets and IP with Chinese state enterprises or get barred from conducting business there. Sadly, U.S. companies entered China with high expectations and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in factories, labs and equipment. This threat has caused many CEO's to sacrifice their company's long term viability by transferring their most closely guarded technological advances to China or face the loss their entire investment in China. Even so, multinationals are beginning the Chinese exodus led by those with less financial exposure soon to be followed by companies like Apple despite significant economic ties.

    True, most people believe a 'trade war' with China means America is the defacto loser because of dishonest reporting. The truth is that America's economic exposure to China is extremely limited. U.S. exports to China represent only 7% of America's total exports worldwide; which in turn accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GDP (Wells Fargo Economics Group 2015). Most of America's exports to China are raw materials, which can be redirected to other markets with some effort. So even if China blocked all U.S. exports tomorrow, America's economy could absorb the blow with minimal damage. This presents the U.S. government with a wide range of options to deal with China's many trade infractions and unfair practices as aggressively or punitively as it wishes.

    europeangrayling

    Poor Davos attendees. You feel for them at their fancy alpine Bilderberg. It's like the meeting of the mafia organizations, if the mafia became legal and respected now and ran the world economy. And I don't think those economic royalists at Davos miss Trump, Trump was a small fish compared to the Davos people. They make Trump look like a dishwasher.

    They are just pissed Trump came out against the TPP and those globalist 'free trade' deals, and doesn't want more regime change maybe. They like everything else about Trump's policies, the big tax cuts, environmental and banking deregulations galore, it's like Reagan 2.0, without the 'free trade'. But they really want that 'free trade' though, those guys are used to getting everything. Imagine if Bernie won, they would really hate that guy, he is also against the TPPs and trade, and for less war, and against everything else they are used to. And that's good, if those honorable brilliant Davos gentleman don't like you, that's not a bad thing.

    soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs

    With secular stagnation we should all be asking why is economics so bad?

    Keynesian redistributive capitalism went out with Margaret Thatcher and inequality has been rising ever since (there is a clue there for the economists amongst us).

    How did these new ideas rise to prominence?

    "There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics

    It's awarded by Sweden's central bank, foisted among the five real prizewinners, often to economists for the 1% -- and the surviving Nobel family is strongly against it."

    "The award for economics came almost 70 years later-bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden's 300th anniversary." Yes, you read that right: "a marketing ploy."

    Today's economics rose to prominence by awarding its economists Nobel Prizes that weren't Nobel Prizes.

    No wonder it's so bad.

    Global elites can use all sorts of trickery to put their ideas in place, but economics is economics and if doesn't reflect how the economy operates it won't work.

    Secular stagnation – what more evidence do we need?

    HauptmannGurski -> bcarey

    Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works.

    Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership, plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international ones.

    Meanwhile, alibaba's Jack Ma said in Davos that the US had spent many trillions on wars in the last 30 years and neglected their own infrastructure. Money is for people, or some such like, he said. Just mentioning it here, because the MSM tend to dislike running this kind of remark.

    Rajanvn -> HauptmannGurski

    My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception.

    Did it, in any way, with all the stars in the financial galaxy gathered in one place, warn against the 2008 global financial meltdown? The real reason why so many moneybags congregate at a place which would be shunned by all who have no affinity for snow sports may be, according to my own reckoning, may not be that innocent and may even be quite sinister.

    This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts. After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world and on what steps to take to mitigate it."!

    Roland33

    I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the complete destruction of diverse cultures.

    If everyone drives Toyota and everyone drinks Starbucks we lose the diversity of culture that people claim they find so valuable. And replaces it with a mono-culture of Levi jeans and McDonalds. Wealth inequality is really something that can be reduced if you look various countries score higher in this regard than others while still being highly successful market economies but I think money is secondary to the displacement and alienation that come with the first two aspects of globalisation. I find it strange that it is now the right that advocates reversing these neoliberal trends and the left that seems to champion it. I was conscious during the 90's and anti-globalisation was clearly a left wing issue. For whatever reason the left just leaves room for the right to harvest the grapes of wrath they warned about many years ago. Don't blame the "populist" right ask why the left left them the space.

    [Jan 18, 2017] The main argument Ive heard/read against UBI is that getting money without working is immoral and it should be to everyone according to his work .

    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Julio -> Peter K.... The main argument I've heard/read against UBI is that getting money without working is immoral and it should be "to everyone according to his work".

    Aside from the obvious contradictions here (we accept heirs getting money without working; and how do you measure anyone's work anyway?), I think this makes an assumption that everything we have is what we produce.

    The fact is that most of what we have is inherited collectively. Even the most successful "job creator" types like Steve Jobs inherit a gigantic cart that they move a few inches forward.

    This is not just concrete material wealth, but institutional wealth also, which we all contribute to continually. Every person that wakes up in the morning and accepts that problems with his neighbor should be resolved in court and not with a gun, is contributing to maintaining that inheritance.

    From this perspective, a UBI that reflects your country's wealth is an inherited right.

    This unstated assumption underlies many of our current debates. E.g. why does an American worker have the right to a Us-standard wage?

    Reply Monday, January 16, 2017 at 11:15 AM RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Julio ... , January 16, 2017 at 12:01 PM
    Well said.
    anne -> Julio ... , January 16, 2017 at 12:26 PM
    Nicely presented.

    [Jan 18, 2017] Marcy Wheeler On Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Originally published at emptywheel ..."
    "... The Count of Monte-Cristo ..."
    "... I believe it was Chomsky who said that the print media has content and filler, the content is the advertising and the filler is everything else. ..."
    "... As advertising revenues have gone down, the print media may be looking for a new operating funds, maybe from wealthy owners (Bezos, Carlos Slim) paying for their views to be featured, maybe from US government hidden funding to "counter fake news" that is contrary to the story the elite wants told. ..."
    "... If there is a feedback loop in the mainstream media, it is very slow and does not correct errors to result in lasting reform. ..."
    "... The Times promoted the Iraq war and then had the Bill Keller retrospective "we got it wrong" years later. ..."
    "... Then the Times moved onto promoting military action in Libya, the Ukraine and Syria. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. Marcy points out how what is considered to be "news" has changed greatly over time, and that the requirement that news be objective is recent and marketing-driven.

    This essay covers a great deal of important ground. I'd like to add one topic, which is the role of propaganda. Even though organizations have done all sorts of evangelizing, the use of the media and social networks of the day for that purpose is relatively recent. Alex Carey in his book Taking the Risk Out of Democracy dates it to the early 1900s. One early, successful campaign led by the National Association of Manufacturers, already a leader in campaigning against organized labor, was to counter the backlash against immigration, which was then seen as a threat to American values and communities. One of their initiatives was institutionalizing "Americanization Day," later rebranded as "Independence Day."

    As we've discussed before, the first full-bore government-sponsored propaganda campaign took place in World War I. The Creel Committee, an agency of the Federal government officially called the Committee on Public Information used all the communication vehicles of its day, not just newspapers. An overview from Wikipedia:

    The committee used newsprint, posters, radio, telegraph, cable and movies to broadcast its message. It recruited about 75,000 "Four Minute Men," volunteers who spoke about the war at social events for an ideal length of four minutes, considering that the average human attention span was judged at the time to be four minutes. They covered the draft, rationing, war bond drives, victory gardens and why America was fighting. It was estimated that by the end of the war, they had made more than 7.5 million speeches to 314 million people in 5,200 communities. They were advised to keep their message positive, always use their own words and avoid "hymns of hate." For ten days in May 1917, the Four Minute Men were expected to promote "Universal Service by Selective Draft" in advance of national draft registration on June 5, 1917.

    The CPI staged events designed for specific ethnic groups. For instance, Irish-American tenor John McCormack sang at Mount Vernon before an audience representing Irish-American organizations. The Committee also targeted the American worker and, endorsed by Samuel Gompers, filled factories and offices with posters designed to promote the critical role of American labor in the success of the war effort.

    The CPI's activities were so thorough that historians later stated, using the example of a typical midwestern American farm family, that

    Every item of war news they saw-in the country weekly, in magazines, or in the city daily picked up occasionally in the general store-was not merely officially approved information but precisely the same kind that millions of their fellow citizens were getting at the same moment. Every war story had been censored somewhere along the line- at the source, in transit, or in the newspaper offices in accordance with 'voluntary' rules established by the CPI.

    The Creel Committee was able to turn America from being firmly pacifist to being eager to fight the evil Germans in a mere 18 months. In Serbia, a concerted propaganda campaign was able to turn public polls radically in a mere six weeks.

    In other words, the hysteria about fake news appears to be members of the officialdom realizing that their traditional propaganda channels don't work because too many people get information on the Internet, and they can no longer orchestrate a Mighty Wurlitzer of unified opinion. This may seem obvious but surprisingly few people are willing to say that in simple terms. The reflex of government opinion managers and their media allies is to shut down or delegitimate offending outlets. But there are too many, not just in the US but overseas, for them to do that other than by severely curtailing Internet publication. Are they prepared to go the route of the Chinese government in terms of restricting foreign access and censoring domestic writers? That's the end game if they are serious about stopping what TPTB deems to be "fake news".

    By Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including the Guardian, Salon, and the Progressive, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial. Originally published at emptywheel

    I've been getting into multiple Twitter fights about the term "fake news" of late, a topic about which I feel strongly but which I don't have time to reargue over and over. So here are the reasons I find the term "fake news" to be counterproductive, even aside from the way Washington Post magnified it with the PropOrNot campaign amidst a series of badly reported articles on Russia that failed WaPo's own standards of "fake news."

    Most people who use the term "fake news" seem to be fetishizing something they call "news." By that, they usually mean the pursuit of "the truth" within an editor-and-reporter system of "professional" news reporting. Even in 2017, they treat that term "news" as if it escapes all biases, with some still endorsing the idea that "objectivity" is the best route to "truth," even in spite of the way "objectivity" has increasingly imposed a kind of both-sides false equivalence that the right has used to move the Overton window in recent years.

    I've got news (heh) for you America. What we call "news" is one temporally and geographically contingent genre of what gets packaged as "news." Much of the world doesn't produce the kind of news we do, and for good parts of our own history, we didn't either. Objectivity was invented as a marketing ploy. It is true that during a period of elite consensus, news that we treated as objective succeeded in creating a unifying national narrative of what most white people believed to be true, and that narrative was tremendously valuable to ensure the working of our democracy. But even there, "objectivity" had a way of enforcing centrism. It excluded most women and people of color and often excluded working class people. It excluded the "truth" of what the US did overseas. It thrived in a world of limited broadcast news outlets. In that sense, the golden age of objective news depended on a great deal of limits to the marketplace of ideas, largely chosen by the gatekeeping function of white male elitism.

    And, probably starting at the moment Walter Cronkite figured out the Vietnam War was a big myth, that elite narrative started developing cracks.

    But several things have disrupted what we fetishize as news since them. Importantly, news outlets started demanding major profits, which changed both the emphasis on reporting and the measure of success. Cable news, starting especially with Fox but definitely extending to MSNBC, aspired to achieve buzz, and even explicitly political outcomes, bringing US news much closer to what a lot of advanced democracies have - politicized news.

    And all that's before 2002, what I regard as a key year in this history. Not only was traditional news struggling in the face of heightened profit expectations even as the Internet undercut the press' traditional revenue model. But at a time of crisis in the financial model of the "news," the press catastrophically blew the Iraq War, and did so at a time when people like me were able to write "news" outside of the strictures of the reporter-and-editor arrangement.

    I actually think, in an earlier era, the government would have been able to get away with its Iraq War lies, because there wouldn't be outlets documenting the errors, and there wouldn't have been ready alternatives to a model that proved susceptible to manipulation. There might eventually have been a Cronkite moment in the Iraq War, too, but it would have been about the conduct of the war, not also about the gaming of the "news" process to create the war. But because there was competition, we saw the Iraq War as a journalistic failure when we didn't see earlier journalistic complicity in American foreign policy as such.

    Since then, of course, the underlying market has continued to change. Optimistically, new outlets have arisen. Some of them - perhaps most notably HuffPo and BuzzFeed and Gawker before Peter Thiel killed it - have catered to the financial opportunities of the Internet, paying for real journalism in part with clickbait stories that draw traffic (which is just a different kind of subsidy than the family-owned project that traditional newspapers often relied on, and these outlets also rely on other subsidies). I'm pretty excited by some of the journalism BuzzFeed is doing right now, but it's worth reflecting their very name nods to clickbait.

    More importantly, the "center" of our national - indeed, global - discourse shifted from elite reporter-and-editor newspapers to social media, and various companies - almost entirely American - came to occupy dominant positions in that economy. That comes with the good and the bad. It permits the formulation of broader networks; it permits crisis on the other side of the globe to become news over here, in some but not all spaces, it permits women and people of color to engage on an equal footing with people previously deemed the elite (though very urgent digital divide issues still leave billions outside this discussion). It allows our spooks to access information that Russia needs to hack to get with a few clicks of a button. It also means the former elite narrative has to compete with other bubbles, most of which are not healthy and many of which are downright destructive. It fosters abuse.

    But the really important thing is that the elite reporter-and-editor oligopoly was replaced with a marketplace driven by a perverse marriage of our human psychology and data manipulation (and often, secret algorithms). Even assuming net neutrality, most existing discourse exists in that marketplace. That reality has negative effects on everything, from financially strapped reporter-and-editor outlets increasingly chasing clicks to Macedonian teenagers inventing stories to make money to attention spans that no longer get trained for long reads and critical thinking.

    The other thing to remember about this historical narrative is that there have always been stories pretending to present the real world that were not in fact the real world. Always. Always always always. Indeed, there are academic arguments that our concept of "fiction" actually arises out of a necessary legal classification for what gets published in the newspaper. "Facts" were insults of the king you could go to prison for. "Fiction" was stories about kings that weren't true and therefore wouldn't get you prison time (obviously, really authoritarian regimes don't honor this distinction, which is an important lesson in their contingency). I have been told that fact/fiction moment didn't happen in all countries, and it happened at different times in different countries (roughly tied, in my opinion, to the moment when the government had to sustain legitimacy via the press).

    But even after that fact/fiction moment, you would always see factual stories intermingling with stuff so sensational that we would never regard it as true. But such sensational not-true stories definitely helped to sell newspapers. Most people don't know this because we generally learn a story via which our fetishized objective news is the end result of a process of earlier news, but news outlets - at least in the absence of heavy state censorship - have always been very heterogeneous.

    As many of you know, a big part of my dissertation covered actual fiction in newspapers. The Count of Monte-Cristo , for example, was published in France's then equivalent of the WSJ. It wasn't the only story about an all powerful figure with ties to Napoleon Bonaparte that delivered justice that appeared in newspapers of the day. Every newspaper offered competing versions, and those sold newspapers at a moment of increasing industrialization of the press in France. But even at a time when the "news" section of the newspaper presented largely curations of parliamentary debates, everything else ran the gamut from "fiction," to sensational stuff (often reporting on technology or colonies), to columns to advertisements pretending to be news.

    After 1848 and 1851, the literary establishment put out alarmed calls to discipline the literary sphere, which led to changes that made such narratives less accessible to the kind of people who might overthrow a king. That was the "fictional narrative" panic of the time, one justified by events of 1848.

    Anyway, if you don't believe me that there has always been fake news, just go to a checkout line and read the National Enquirer, which sometimes does cover people like Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel. "But people know that's fake news!" people say. Not all, and not all care. It turns out, some people like to consume fictional narratives (I have actually yet to see analysis of how many people don't realize or care that today's Internet fake news is not true). In fact, everyone likes to consume fictional narratives - it's a fundamental part of what makes us human - but some of us believe there are norms about whether fictional narratives should be allowed to influence how we engage in politics.

    Not that that has ever stopped people from letting religion - a largely fictional narrative - dictate political decisions.

    So to sum up this part of my argument: First, the history of journalism is about the history of certain market conditions, conditions which always get at least influenced by the state, but which in so-called capitalist countries also tend to produce bottle necks of power. In the 50s, it was the elite. Now it's Silicon Valley. And that's true not just here! The bottle-neck of power for much of the world is Silicon Valley. To understand what dictates the kinds of stories you get from a particular media environment, you need to understand where the bottle-necks are. Today's bottle-neck has created both what people like to call "fake news" and a whole bunch of other toxins.

    But also, there has never been a time in media where not-true stories didn't comingle with true stories, and at many times in history the lines between them were not clear to many consumers. Plus, not-true stories, of a variety of types, can often have a more powerful influence than true ones (think about how much our national security state likes series like 24). Humans are wired for narrative, not for true or false narrative.

    Which brings us to what some people are calling "fake news" - as if both "fake" and "news" aren't just contingent terms across the span of media - and insisting it has never existed before. These people suggest the advent of deliberately false narratives, produced both by partisans, entrepreneurs gaming ad networks, as well as state actors trying to influence our politics, narratives that feed on human proclivity for sensationalism (though stories from this year showed Trump supporters had more of this than Hillary supporters) served via the Internet, are a new and unique threat, and possibly the biggest threat in our media environment right now.

    Let me make clear: I do think it's a threat, especially in an era where local trusted news is largely defunct. I think it is especially concerning because powers of the far right are using it to great effect. But I think pretending this is a unique moment in history - aside from the characteristics of the marketplace - obscures the areas (aside from funding basic education and otherwise fostering critical thinking) that can most effectively combat it. I especially encourage doing what we can to disrupt the bottle-neck - one that happens to be in Silicon Valley - that plays on human nature. Google, Facebook, and Germany have all taken initial steps which may limit the toxins that get spread via a very American bottle-neck.

    I'm actually more worried about the manipulation of which stories get fed by big data. Trump claims to have used it to drive down turnout; and the first he worked with is part of a larger information management company. The far right is probably achieving more with these tailored messages than Vladimir Putin is with his paid trolls.

    The thing is: the antidote to both of these problems are to fix the bottle-neck.

    But I also think that the most damaging non-true news story of the year was Bret Baier's claim that Hillary was going to be indicted, as even after it was retracted it magnified the damage of Jim Comey's interventions. I always raise that in Twitter debates, and people tell me oh that's just bad journalism not fake news. It was a deliberate manipulation of the news delivery system (presumably by FBI Agents) in the same way the manipulation of Facebooks algorithms feeds so-called fake news. But it had more impact because more people saw it and people may retain news delivered as news more. It remains a cinch to manipulate the reporter-and-editor news process (particularly in an era driven by clicks and sensationalism and scoops), and that is at least as major a threat to democracy as non-elites consuming made up stories about the Pope.

    I'll add that there are special categories of non-factual news that deserve notice. Much stock reporting, especially in the age of financialization, is just made up hocus pocus designed to keep the schlubs whom the elite profit off of in the market. And much reporting on our secret foreign policy deliberately reports stuff the reporter knows not to be true. David Sanger's recent amnesia of his own reporting on StuxNet is a hilarious example of this, as is all the Syria reporting that pretends we haven't intervened there. Frankly, even aside from the more famous failures, a lot of Russian coverage obscures reality, which discredits reports on what is a serious issue. I raise these special categories because they are the kind of non-true news that elites endorse, and as such don't raise the alarm that Macedonian teenagers making a buck do.

    The latest panic about "fake news" - Trump's labeling of CNN and Buzzfeed as such for disseminating the dossier that media outlets chose not to disseminate during the election - suffers from some of the same characteristics, largely because parts of it remain shrouded in clandestine networks (and because the provenance remains unclear). If American power relies (as it increasingly does) on secrets and even outright lies, who's to blame the proles for inventing their own narratives, just like the elite do?

    Two final points.

    First, underlying most of this argument is an argument about what happens when you subject the telling of true stories to certain conditions of capitalism. There is often a tension in this process, as capitalism may make "news" (and therefore full participation in democracy) available to more people, but to popularize that news, businesses do things that taint the elite's idealized notion of what true story telling in a democracy should be. Furthermore, at no moment in history I'm aware of has there been a true "open" market for news. It is always limited by the scarcity of outlets and bandwidth, by laws, by media ownership patterns, and by the historically contingent bottle-necks that dictate what kind of news may be delivered most profitably. One reason I loathe the term "fake news" is because its users think the answer lies in non-elite consumers or in producers and not in the marketplace itself, a marketplace created in and largely still benefitting the US. If "fake news" is a problem, then it's a condemnation of the marketplace of ideas largely created by the US and elites in the US need to attend to that.

    Finally, one reason there is such a panic about "fake news" is because the western ideology of neoliberalism has failed. It has led to increased authoritarianism, decreased qualify of life in developed countries (but not parts of Africa and other developing nations), and it has led to serial destabilizing wars along with the refugee crises that further destabilize Europe. It has failed in the same way that communism failed before it, but the elites backing it haven't figured this out yet. I'll write more on this (Ian Walsh has been doing good work here ). All details of the media environment aside, this has disrupted the value-laden system in which "truth" exists, creating a great deal of panic and confusion among the elite that expects itself to lead the way out of this morass. Part of what we're seeing in "fake news" panic stems from that, as well as a continued disinterest in accountability for the underlying policies - the Iraq War and the Wall Street crash and aftermath especially - enabled by failures in our elite media environment. But our media environment is likely to be contested until such time as a viable ideology forms to replace failed neoliberalism. Sadly, that ideology will be Trump_vs_deep_state unless the elite starts making the world a better place for average folks. Instead, the elite is policing discourse-making by claiming other things - the bad true and false narratives it, itself, doesn't propagate - as illegitimate.

    "Fake news" is a problem. But it is a minor problem compared to our other discursive problems.

    0 0 8 1 0 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Guest Post , Media watch , New McCarthyism , Politics , Social values , Surveillance state on January 16, 2017 by Yves Smith .
    Trade now with TradeStation – Highest rated for frequent traders
    Subscribe to Post Comments 19 comments epynonymous , January 16, 2017 at 6:51 am

    Saw some fake TV today.

    Episode 2 of the new gameshow "The Wall", which features up to ~$12 Million in possible prizes, they cheat the very first question.

    Confirm it for yourself. The 'couple' (the game is for 'couples) is a military family. The hot-shot helo-pilot doesn't know who won the tortise and the hare.

    He screams, the hare! And presses the button in plain sight.

    Never-the-less he is rewarded a win. His wife later cannot tell the nicknames of the F-16 and the F-18 apart for 100% sure.

    https://www.ohow.co/secret-%C9%A2oogle-com-trump-spam-google-analytics/

    Also, a link which I can only guess details spammers who spam and then offer a solution to their spamming.

    epynonymous , January 16, 2017 at 6:53 am

    Once upon a time, the search string "I have a secret fake" in Google would return lone string of a book where a lone voice in the wilderness put in print that the whole show was 'managed.'

    A sophisticated re-viewing shows it to have been 'faked' this is all back in the 50's. It's coming back, but two years after my last research on this, the same search string only gave me the above link to . what?

    epynonymous , January 16, 2017 at 7:51 am

    The tortise wins. Correction: The show's later episodes (just watched) reveal that answers in transit can be changed. So this is no repeat of 'Card Sharks' (Time magazine complicity included.)

    It's awkward when nobody quite knows what exactly the rules are and the prize is so high.

    It's going to be a weird week.

    JTMcPhee , January 16, 2017 at 10:50 am

    Let us remember Charles "The Genius Of All Time" Van Doren, and his skyrocket fame (what's the end point of a skyrocket's trajectory, again?) in the Great Quiz Show Manipulation of the '50s and early '60s, this story link from the NYT in 2008 kind of lifts some of the corners of the curtain that the Bernaysian manipulators hide behind, "After 49 years, Charles Van Doren talks," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/opinion/21iht-edbeam.1.14660467.html

    "For evil to triumph, all that is required is for a few good people to remain silent," or some such sh!t.

    And there's this, on another YUUUGE cultural phenom, "The $64,000 Question," which was one of those "quiz" game shows my parents and us kids sat mesmerized watching, with visions of "free money" dancing in our peabrains, and which "program" (what a wonderful meme-name for what "media" does to us mopes) pure deceit and buzz-building on a par with state Lotteries: "The American Experience: The $64,000 Question," http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/quizshow/peopleevents/pande06.html (note that this was from PBS, in 1999, before the Reagan Rot had really gained a full head of steam).

    Once again, the popular interpretation and infusion and internalization of "information" displaying and relating, "those who have eyes, let them see," the unhappy sicknesses of a pleasure-and-greed-driven human infestation gets it all wrong, finds no wisdom leading out of the cave, turns possible insights into just more grist for the Bernaysian mills to roll out

    "Jerr-Y! Jerr-Y! Jerr-Y!" "And in the room the women come and go, talking of Michelangelo "

    epynonymous , January 16, 2017 at 7:06 am

    Just because I'm really on a tear, has anyone seen the Late Show where Colbert spends 12 minutes on Trump 'Golden Shower' rumors?

    The piece even runs mainstream TV headlines about a "rift" between Trump and the intelligence agencies while never explaining a thing.

    The inside angle on such 'rumors' (Russian rumors, I presume looking at you DNC ) is fit to be reported as fact in this case.

    jabawocky , January 16, 2017 at 7:49 am

    'In other words, the hysteria about fake news appears to be members of the officialdom realizing that their traditional propaganda channels don't work because too many people get information on the Internet, and they can no longer orchestrate a Mighty Wurlitzer of unified opinion.'

    Bang on Yves. And I would add that if you run a propaganda machine, and are a little paranoid, any 'unauthorised' story on the web looks like someone else's propaganda.

    Its wrong to put all this down to internet news however. Adam Curtis' 'Bitter Lake' is a must-see on this topic. Just like in 1980s Soviet Union where the stories of Russian greatness were so obviously contradicted by the experience of ordinary Russians of a failing state, the fakery of the war on terror propaganda has worn away our trust in the Mighty Wurlitzer. Curtis linked the cultural collapse of the Soviet Union intrinsically to the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the mirror it held up to the supposed values of Soviet Society, as trumpeted by their version of the Mighty Wurlitzer. And maybe he's right.

    1933 Germany, 1989 Sovient Union, 2016 USA. All three stemmed from failures of the Mighty Wurlitzer. The big question is whether we will long for it back.

    Clive , January 16, 2017 at 8:44 am

    One for Curtis hardcore fans only (he really stretched his already tenuous hold on the conventions of documentary making in this one) but his latest, HyperNormalisation , takes the themes you refer to in your comment above and expands on them to explain how we got to Fake News.

    Well worth a watch, if you can access it.

    lyman alpha blob , January 16, 2017 at 8:23 am

    Same as it ever was.

    To go a little farther back, this book Infamous Scribblers about what passed as journalism back in the 18th century is a good read.

    equote , January 16, 2017 at 8:38 am

    http://www.dallasnews.com/business/stock-market/2017/01/16/will-public-company-go-way-dodo-bird

    This doesn't read like fake news, but I would like to read nakedcapitalism's views on the trend, if it exists, and the implications for society etc.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 16, 2017 at 9:14 am

    The last CEO of the company, a publicly traded company, where my dad worked before the sale to GE told my dad that in the future companies can't go public if they don't want to work for Wall Street wolves. This was around '95. Dad still goes to company reunions. Those weirdos liked their jobs.

    Of course, the longer trend is business formation related. The Internet and social media booms are over, and those were the new IPOs of the last 20 years. The ends of growth are the real issues.

    David , January 16, 2017 at 8:54 am

    I don't think anybody is "fetishizing news," but whilst its true that there's a far greater variety of information sources today, and many of them are not subject to the pressures of conventional media, the implication that somehow the overall level of "truth" has gone up is not sustainable. If anything it's probably gone down. Those of us of a certain age remember a time when there were far more newspapers than today, when ownership was spread much more widely, and where newspapers had a lot more staff and were under a lot less commercial pressure than is the case now. You could, and did, allow for political bias, and it was possible, though not common, for blatant untruths to be published. But that was more difficult than it is today, because the barriers to entry were much higher, and the total media space was much smaller.
    I also think its unfair to blame the problem solely on the effects of neoliberalism, damaging as those have been. Journalists themselves have to bear some of the blame. In the 1990s, it became fashionable to deride objectivity (mere "objectivity, a white, patriarchal western concept) as an objective of journalism. Because total objectivity was impossible, it was said, you shouldn't even try. And as a number of journalists at the time argued "you can't be objective between good and evil." The same people who lied about WMD in Iraq in 2002 had already lied about Bosnia a decade before, were to lie about Darfur a few years later and are busy lying about Syria, the Ukraine and "free trade" today. In each case, the argument is the same: the service of a higher moral principle. I've even heard it argued that Trump is such a terrible human being that journalists have not only a right but an actual duty to print anything that might cause him harm. To the extent that you abandon the demand that journalists should do their professional best to be as accurate as possible, and you see "news" itself as a contested, contingent term, it's hard to rationally criticise the actors in any of these episodes.

    Vatch , January 16, 2017 at 9:37 am

    What were the lies about Bosnia and Darfur?

    dontknowitall , January 16, 2017 at 9:41 am

    Interesting essay I am not mollified by reading that Google, Facebook and Germany are uniting to defeat 'fake news' and then remembering the recent rumors (fake news?) that Mark Zuckerberg, of Facebook, is considering running for President so what happens when the bottle-neck king also runs the nation, or is even just thinking of it (Zuckerberg finding God recently comes to mind), when most voters are getting their news from their Facebook news feeds ? Would something mildly critical of Mark Zuckerberg survive 'fake' news review ?

    Also, just because China has a walled garden doesn't save them from a torrent of local fake news. In the US the current business model of the internet news is actually a greater danger to democracy and that is the automated binning of consumers into narrow categories (right, left, techie etc) from which they find it hard to stray, if they even think of it, and so it makes it hard for a reader to see in his newsfeed countervailing news or analysis, people thus get polarized. The effort to find different/opposing opinions is not painless and quite by design. This trap has to be broken.

    Quality education of the population and freer access to information are greater defenses of democracy and freedom the any Facebook designed filter.

    susan the other , January 16, 2017 at 9:42 am

    great essay. Makes me think there is some bedrock reality beneath all the noise that keeps us rational enough to survive. All forms of life display good judgment; practicality. So do we. So I'm not very concerned that we might be pants-less without an ideology to shroud all the embarrassing craziness. I'm encouraged by that prospect.

    Disturbed Voter , January 16, 2017 at 9:54 am

    Sheep get slaughtered I choose not to be a sheep. I had no choice in the 60s, when I had three oligopoly networks to choose from. With the Internet, I am my own reporter. This is more like how the printing press destroyed the Catholic Church. I make my own narrative, I don't let anyone else do it for me. Facts are few and far between, but they are just signposts on my own superhighway which I build myself. Are my beliefs factual? Are they for anyone? That was a rhetorical question. People who think their beliefs are The Truth are maniacs.

    Altandmain , January 16, 2017 at 10:11 am

    This whole "fake news" business is all about suppressing dissent, as others have noted.

    The media tried to coronate Clinton. With falling advertising revenues in some cases, and decreasing trust in the mainstream media, they have begun to panic. They know that the people realize that they are the Pravda of plutocracy.

    At the same time, the alternative media has grown with the Internet. It has reached growing members and allowed people to see the truth.

    Counterpunch had a good article on this one:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works/

    The reason why propaganda like "fake news" exists is to create a false narrative that can be repeated that people can believe in. The other of course is to force people to comply or face professional and financial consequences.

    The thing is, I think that we've reached the limits of propaganda. Inequality has reached an extent that the myth that America is a meritocracy has failed, while efforts to force the American people to accept war have been faced with opposition.

    Altandmain , January 16, 2017 at 10:56 am

    One more point I should repeat. Perhaps a blatant example: Fox News has been making fake news for years and yet nobody called it out.

    That's because it served the interests of the very rich. That's what this is all about.

    John Wright , January 16, 2017 at 10:12 am

    What is unsurprising is that the media does signal what the insiders want/plan to do.

    I was in a library that had some old bound Life Magazines and decided to see what the Life covered just prior to the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

    There was an article about a Midwest congressmen who was visiting his district, who knew his constituents did not want to go to war, but seemed to see the US entry into war likely.

    Even Hollywood got into the act, as the Sergeant York (American WWI hero) 1941 movie was released on July 2, 1941, well before Pearl Harbor.

    There seems to be little penalty for journalists getting it wrong, for example Tom Friedman, Nicholas Kristof, and Michael Gordon of the Times still have jobs after their "let's promote the Iraq War effort".

    Judith Miller was the lone sacrificial lamb.

    Some of them even re-write history, as sanctimonious Nicholas Kristof, while recently pimping for the USA's involvement in Syria (on humanitarian grounds, of course), pushed a "trust me on Syria" story by asserting his prior wisdom in his alleged strong opposition to the Iraq war.

    Yet I archived an August 27, 2002 column in which he wrote:

    "Iraq may well be different. President Bush has convinced me that there is no philosophical reason we should not overthrow the Iraqi government, given that Iraqis themselves would be better off, along with the rest of the world. But Mr. Bush has not overcome some practical concerns about an invasion."

    What about ethical concerns, Kristof?

    I believe it was Chomsky who said that the print media has content and filler, the content is the advertising and the filler is everything else.

    As advertising revenues have gone down, the print media may be looking for a new operating funds, maybe from wealthy owners (Bezos, Carlos Slim) paying for their views to be featured, maybe from US government hidden funding to "counter fake news" that is contrary to the story the elite wants told.

    If there is a feedback loop in the mainstream media, it is very slow and does not correct errors to result in lasting reform.

    The Times promoted the Iraq war and then had the Bill Keller retrospective "we got it wrong" years later.

    Then the Times moved onto promoting military action in Libya, the Ukraine and Syria.

    The Times recently had an "Obama regrets Libya" retrospective, what other "we got it wrong" retrospectives will occur in the future?

    Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 10:20 am

    In the third paragraph Marcy begins talking about objectivity and then shifts to denigrating "objectivity" without a word about what the scare quotes mean to her. Now I understand that the language used by an oppressive system can itself be oppressive. But if "objectivity" omitted women and people of color, well, clearly that's bad, but what does that have to do with objectivity?

    Maybe I'm just too old and out of touch to get the post modern project to dismantle objectivity and replace it with self-centered wishful thinking. But without objectivity, we would never have seen the civil rights movement or the rise of feminism in the sixties.

    I was still very young during the civil rights movement so I won't talk about what I don't really know first hand, but the rise of feminism took place in the prime of my passionate youth. What many middle class women were experiencing in the '50s was a complete isolation in the suburbs and a feeling (due largely to rampant blaming the victim) that all the problems of their lives were their own personal problems. It was not until politically active women began to share their experiences in consciousness raising groups that they discovered that they were not alone in their experiences i.e. that many of their so-called personal problems were objectively imposed upon the entire group of women by the oppressive society. That is, these were not personal problems at all, they were socially constructed problems that effected all women to some degree. Without objectivity there could be no oppression theory, consciousness raising groups are transformed into support groups, oppression theory becomes psychology, and the oppression of women is dissolved into nothing more than the personal problems of individual women. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Bloomberg -- eminent fake news producer

    Jan 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Central Intelligence Agency Director William Colby comment about the media - YouTube
    Church Committee Hearings CIA William Colby 1975 - YouTube
    A History of CIA Media Manipulation - YouTube

    Here is what Bloomberg peddled for news yesterday.

    Donald Trump's advisers have told U.K. officials that the incoming president's first foreign trip will be a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin , potentially in Reykjavik within weeks of taking office, the Sunday Times reported. Trump plans to begin working on a deal to limit nuclear weapons, the newspaper said, without providing details. It cited an unidentified source for the summit plans, and added that Moscow is ready to agree to the meeting , based on comments from officials at the Russian embassy in London. The paper, citing an unidentified adviser to Trump, told the Times that the president-elect, who will be sworn in on Jan. 20, will meet with Putin at a neutral venue "very soon." In eyeing Iceland's capital, Trump's team may be hoping to recreate the optics of a Reagan-era nuclear agreement. Former President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, then general secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, held a two-day summit in Reykjavik in October 1986 to work on what eventually became a major nuclear disarmament treaty between the two superpowers in 1987. Trump's transition team didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Did the media just make up this story out of thin air in an attempt to further deride Trump? I must admit, only in a bizarre world, such as the one created by the left for the left, is holding meetings with a military super power in the attempts to normalize relations and preserve peace considered a bad thing. Alas, we are living in an era of war, where the military industrial complex works overtime to control useful idiots to foment anger and sway public opinion towards (you guessed it) MOAR WAR. This story was likely leaked by team Trump on purpose, in order to make the media look like jackass fools. By leaking falsehoods to an ornery and invective media, Trump keeps them on their toes and makes them second guess anything they hear coming out of his quarters, an effective disinformation strategy used to fool an enemy during a time of war.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

    espirit -> pparalegal , Jan 15, 2017 7:59 PM

    Strange feeling that pressure put on Trump to divest association with Putin / Russia by U.S. intelligence community / MSM, is moar than meets the eye fact sheet. Threats, veiled or otherwise appear to be perceived deterrents by those in D.C. who would shun any illumination into their illegal and corrupt activities, thus a Trump / Putin alliance could very well expose many conspiritors.

    Vlad the Impaler is coming to town.

    I imagine Putin has some dirt on a lot of DC SwampCreatures©. (Marvel issue #27)

    Be very afraid of the light, mofo's.

    pparalegal , Jan 15, 2017 7:45 PM

    Brilliant. This guy is good. All that will be left of the talking parrots and pretend news media empires will be 18 year old interns translating his tweets and asking John Lewis for comments to go with Obama's daily preaching to the flock. The leftover time will be filled with protesters burning tires and viagra commercials.

    Hollywood screen writers take note.

    TeethVillage88s -> dexter_morgan , Jan 15, 2017 6:19 PM

    Timely work by the fly. Guy is on top of it.

    -

    "Did the media just make up this story out of thin air in an attempt to further deride Trump? I must admit, only in a bizarre world, such as the one created by the left for the left, is holding meetings with a military super power in the attempts to normalize relations and preserve peace considered a bad thing. Alas, we are living in an era of war, where the military industrial complex works overtime to control useful idiots to foment anger and sway public opinion towards (you guessed it) MOAR WAR."

    - Hope there are forensics on this work of fiction

    rwe2late , Jan 15, 2017 12:55 PM

    Too bad the reported visit is fake.

    As I had posted, it would be a good idea to defuse the situation O-Bomb-A and his NATO

    underlings have made in Europe. The danger of a sudden escalated military conflict is real

    (deliberate, inadvertant, or contrived).

    So now, I guess, Trump will meet first with the bosses of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the 'City of London'.

    TeethVillage88s -> rwe2late , Jan 15, 2017 6:29 PM

    Since 1989 the Political Elite and Corporate Elite don't care who the enemy is as long as there is an Enemy.

    - Except hands off Israel, and don't support Palestine - And Except for Saudi Arabia - And Except for UK, Canada, Mexico, Aus, EU... but we don't mind fucking with NATO Countries Politics using Operation Gladio type Strategy of Tension or shipping in Millions of Refugees from M.E. - And well there are 7-8 countries we want to collapse and maybe Venezuela and Argentina and Brazil

    Yup, this is foreign policy and your foreign policy tax dollars at work.

    rudyspeaks , Jan 15, 2017 12:06 PM

    The MSM is not now, and has never been, "liberal" let alone,"left wing". It's owned by 5 groups of right-wing billionaires (4 families, Murdochs, Luces, Disneys and Redstones, and Comcast). When Georgie W was lying us into the Iraq war-crime they supported the war push with a full-blown media "narrative" of its inevidebility plus a 4-to1 ratio of rightwing liars (Bush, Rice, Cheney, etc) to people telling the truth. Still, as my conservative friends noted, foreign interventions and "nation-building" are anathema to the conservative cause. Thus, rather than tar them with Bush's failures, I realized that W's administration was simply a group of hypocrites, rich thugs, intent on serving their wealthy patrons. May I suggest, after 8 years of the same hypocracy from the Obama administration, the same dynamic holds. "Liberals", real "left wing people" (I include myself) would never call for martial law (thanks, Rosy!), any more than they'd support war-crime invasions (see "Libya", "Ukraine", "Syria") or right-wing coups (see "Honduras"). Let's let up on the labels, folks. We're all up against a force that has demonstrated NO IDEOLOGY above and beyond enriching their own tiny, wealthy cabal. WE is all we got.

    TeethVillage88s -> heuvosYbacon , Jan 15, 2017 6:49 PM

    I'm not sure barfinmymouth has got it, but you do get it.

    Corruption has peaked and we have to start disassembly.

    - Time to destroy powerful political aparati. - Time to reform, Term Limits, money in politics, unlimited money in politic, Lobbying, Foreign Lobbying, Foreign Agents in the USA, PACs, Think Tanks, Foundations,... the Very Heart of English Corruption which it's adherents run around supporting... Money is not free speech... Corruption of Media and Oligopolies in General are not Freedom, Liberty or Free Speech

    Reorganization in the USA is now required,... organizations have to be down-sized

    jeff montanye -> The Management , Jan 15, 2017 2:13 PM

    my favorite phrase was "left wing militarist war mongers."

    the snowflakes can't take much heat themselves, and go into teary rages at the insults halloween costumes visit on various underclass ethnic groups, but are only too ready to send a hail of explosive death on poor, brown people defending their lands from the empire.

    one million dead? three? not enough apparently.

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-...

    El Oregonian -> WhyDoesItHurtWhen iPee , Jan 15, 2017 7:17 PM

    "In a time of universal deceit; tellng the truth is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell

    [Jan 15, 2017] Rising inequality, an unfair political system, and a government that spoke for the people while acting for the elites after the 2008 financial crisis created ideal conditions for a candidate like Donald Trump.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rising inequality, an unfair political system, and a government that spoke for the people while acting for the elites after the 2008 financial crisis created ideal conditions for a candidate like Donald Trump. American leaders who have mismanaged the process of globalization have only themselves to blame for the coming era. ..."
    "... Obama/Reid/Pelosi set the table for Trump... ..."
    Jan 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    JohnH : January 14, 2017 at 08:34 AM
    ..."Rising inequality, an unfair political system, and a government that spoke for the people while acting for the elites after the 2008 financial crisis created ideal conditions for a candidate like Donald Trump. American leaders who have mismanaged the process of globalization have only themselves to blame for the coming era."

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/the-age-of-trump-by-joseph-e-stiglitz-2017-01?barrier=accessyef

    Obama/Reid/Pelosi set the table for Trump...

    anne -> JohnH... , January 14, 2017 at 08:52 AM

    The words are an advertisement for a collection of articles, not a quote from the article by Joseph Stiglitz.
    JohnH -> anne... , January 14, 2017 at 09:12 AM
    You may be right...but here's a more damning quote directly from Stiglitz' piece:

    "US President Barack Obama saved not only the banks, but also the bankers, shareholders, and bondholders. His economic-policy team of Wall Street insiders broke the rules of capitalism to save the elite, confirming millions of Americans' suspicion that the system is, as Trump would say, "rigged."

    Obama/Reid/Pelosi set the table for Trump...

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 14, 2017 at 09:57 AM
    "You may be right..."

    She is right. You were dishonest or mistaken about attributing it to Stiglitz. The authors don't write those little summation paragraphs at the beginning.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 14, 2017 at 08:54 AM
    "American leaders who have mismanaged the process of globalization..."

    Didn't Stiglitz get the memo? The prog neolibs are blaming automation.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Neocon chickenhawks as closet Napoleons with huge sense of inferiority by DUNCAN KELLY

    Notable quotes:
    "... Napoleon didn't mean fatalism by this, rather that political action is unavoidable if you want personal and national glory. It requires a mastery of fortune, and a willingness to be ruthless when necessary. If this sounds Machiavellian, that's because it is - Machiavelli's arguments about politics informed Napoleon's self-consciousness, whether in appraising fortune as a woman or a river to be tamed and harnessed, or assuming that in politics it is better to be feared than loved. Such views went hand in hand with the grand visions of politics outlined in the ancient histories and biographies Napoleon revered as a young man. "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" was Napoleon's cool if brutal reminder of an ever-present item on his exhausting schedule. ..."
    "... Those chickenhawk neocons like Hillary, Kagan or Michael Leeden do not want to die, they want that somebody else died for them implementing their crazy imperial ambitions. ..."
    "... The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> New Deal democrat... January 14, 2017 at 08:16 AM

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/books/review/napoleon-a-life-by-andrew-roberts.html

    November 16, 2014

    'Napoleon: A Life,' by Andrew Roberts

    By DUNCAN KELLY

    On July 22, 1789, a week after the storming of the Bastille in Paris, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote to his older brother, Joseph, that there was nothing much to worry about. "Calm will return. In a month." His timing was off, but perhaps he took the misjudgment to heart because he spent the rest of his life trying to bring glory and order to France by building a new sort of empire. By the time he was crowned emperor on Dec. 2, 1804, he could say, "I am the Revolution." It was, according to the historian Andrew Roberts's epically scaled new biography, "Napoleon: A Life," both the ultimate triumph of the self-made man, an outsider from Corsica who rose to the apex of French political life, and simultaneously a "defining moment of the Enlightenment," fixing the "best" of the French Revolution through his legal, educational and administrative reforms. Such broad contours get at what Napoleon meant by saying to his literary hero Goethe at a meeting in Erfurt, "Politics is fate."

    Napoleon didn't mean fatalism by this, rather that political action is unavoidable if you want personal and national glory. It requires a mastery of fortune, and a willingness to be ruthless when necessary. If this sounds Machiavellian, that's because it is - Machiavelli's arguments about politics informed Napoleon's self-consciousness, whether in appraising fortune as a woman or a river to be tamed and harnessed, or assuming that in politics it is better to be feared than loved. Such views went hand in hand with the grand visions of politics outlined in the ancient histories and biographies Napoleon revered as a young man. "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" was Napoleon's cool if brutal reminder of an ever-present item on his exhausting schedule.

    His strategy always included dashing off thousands of letters and plans, in a personal regime calling for little sleep, much haste and a penchant for being read to while taking baths so as not to waste even a minute. He compartmentalized ruthlessly, changing tack between lobbying for more shoes and brandy for the army at one minute, to directing the personal lives of his siblings or writing love letters to the notorious Josephine at another; here ensuring extravagant financial "contributions" from those whom he had vanquished, there discussing the booty to send back to Paris, particularly from the extraordinary expedition in Egypt where his "savants had missed nothing." The personal and the political ran alongside each other in his mind.

    Yet when his longtime collaborator but fair-weather political friend, the diplomat Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, suggested that Napoleon try to make those he conquered learn to love France, Napoleon replied that this was an irrelevance. "Aimer: I don't really know what this means when applied to politics," he said. Still, if grand strategy and national interest lay behind foreign affairs, there were nevertheless personal rules of conduct to uphold. Talleyrand was a party to Napoleon's strategy since supporting his coup d'état against the French Directory in 1799. That was O.K. And by short-selling securities he made millions for himself. But he was called out by Napoleon and dismissed as vice grand elector when found facing both ways politically at a crucial moment.

    Napoleon understood those temptations because he was also flexible enough to tilt toward the winning side, regularly supporting any form of local religion that could help him militarily. Nonetheless, Roberts's Napoleon is a soldier, statesman and "bona fide intellectual," who rode his luck for longer than most intellectuals in politics ever do....

    Duncan Kelly teaches political thought at the University of Cambridge.

    libezkova -> anne... , January 14, 2017 at 10:25 AM
    " "Bloodletting is among the ingredients of political medicine" "

    Those chickenhawk neocons like Hillary, Kagan or Michael Leeden do not want to die, they want that somebody else died for them implementing their crazy imperial ambitions.

    kthomas -> libezkova... , January 14, 2017 at 11:48 AM
    Russian troll?
    libezkova -> kthomas... , -1
    I like the way you are thinking about this issue my totally brainwashed friend (sorry Anne ;-)

    Your remark just confirms the power of official propaganda machine

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/why-ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works

    == quote ==

    The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative.

    The current "Russian hacking" hysteria is a perfect example of how this works. No one aside from total morons actually believes this official narrative (the substance of which is beyond ridiculous), not even the stooges selling it to us. This, however, is not a problem, because it isn't intended to be believed it is intended to be accepted and repeated, more or less like religious dogma.

    ilsm -> libezkova...
    US press is a propaganda mill.

    The DNC is not the "US election", therefore how can hacking the DNC be a serious issue?

    Then they give front page to Mr. Lewis who says a deceitful line that 'Russians made Clinton lose'. Nothing in the hack changed my observation that she is a war monger in wall st's employ.

    They print and broadcast the lines fed. Lines which have no basis in truth.

    If you think of what is said you have to conclude that criminals should have privacy and those digging perpetrate harm when the "leaks" exposed truths the public is not supposed to know.

    If the average American could think and get a few facts they would conclude there is no democracy because the things they know are not true.

    Saturday, January 14, 2017 at 05:11 PM
    libezkova -> ilsm...

    MSM is an executive arm of "deep state" propaganda machine.

    http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    == quote ==

    During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency's involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff.

    ...Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America's leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. "Let's not pick on some poor reporters, for God's sake," William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee's investigators. "Let's go to the managements. They were witting." In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.

    == end of quote ==

    This is not about DNC hacking. Hacking is just a smokescreen. The real game is to prevent any change in the USA foreign policy, especially in Syria and toward Russia. That's why they tried this "soft coup" against Trump. That's why NYT, CNN, etc published all those dirty stories.

    Also many CIA bureaucrats do not want to be sent from bloated Washington headquarters to distant lands to do what they are supposed to do -- collect intelligence, not to engage is domestic politics (and they were fully engaged on the side of Hillary).

    ilsm -> kthomas..., January 14, 2017 at 03:30 PM

    Preparation and objects make one lucky.

    Americans are remiss in ignoring Napoleon, many of his students, etc.

    libezkova is worth reading.

    The problem with HRC, Kagan or Leeden is they thought a new American century was strategy, then silled a lot of snake oil.

    ilsm said... , January 14, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    The past year we have had two war parties tilt for the White House. Neither has strategy, both morally bankrupt!

    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

    Rev Martin Luther King at Riverside Church in NYC Apr 1967.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 14, 2017 at 01:03 PM
    [Awesome, Dude. THX. Should be mandatory reading for everyone that votes or expresses political opinion in the US. As inappropriate as it is to cherry pick anything from this marvelous speech/sermon out of context to its entirety, this one tidbit really stood out:] "... There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!..."
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 14, 2017 at 03:34 PM

    I wonder had I read it as a young man would I have the courage to accept it the way I do now after I have made all the wrong decisions.

    He opened my eyes nearly as much as my friend Bob who had been an SF advisor at the province level and confirmed everything written about the corruption and plundering of the RVN government.

    MLK was incredibly aware of the truth on the ground in Vietnam.

    [Jan 14, 2017] The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy Christopher Lasch

    Jan 14, 2017 | www.amazon.com
    William H. Panning on December 6, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
    A tour de force that helps readers understand their country, and culture and how they evolved

    " Readers of Chris Hayes' "Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy" may recognize some common themes here. But Lasch presented his far more complete and prescient descriptions of our situation some eighteen years earlier. When I read Hayes' book, some months before Trump's nomination, I immediately recommended to all my liberal friends that they read it. But now, after reading Lasch's even more nuanced critique, I see the work of an incredibly perceptive intellectual whose perceptions and analyses are far more nuanced and comprehensive. This is the kind of work that we once expected the best academics to produce, intended for a broad audience.

    Tidewater on March 13, 2016 Format: Paperback

    Not exactly a "revolt"

    " This is a good, not great, book. It covers a lot of fascinating territory, including extended treatment of Orestes Brownson's critiques of Horace Mann on universal education, and Walter Lippman's disputes with John Dewey on "public opinion." Esoteric, to say the least.

    Rather than a review, I offer as a counterweght Walter A. McDougall's weighty history, "Throes of Democracy." A heck of a lot was going on in the 19th century American political scene, and McDougall fills in a lot of the blanks, including the significance of Herman Melville's "Confidence Man," and the utter callousness and greed exhibited by the founders of many of the various "western" states.

    I found Lasch, even with his often admirable critical analyses, a bit too comfortable in his academic perch dealing with the mixed legacies of the 19th and early 20th century. Note also: his use of the word "democracy" badly needed defining, as did "revolt," more like an unfriendly takeover IMHO.

    [Jan 12, 2017] Kahn is completely clueless as for origin of rumors

    What a completely naive, completely pseudoscientific nonsense. The guy is completely clueless about driving forces of rumors.: it is the distrust to the official channels that drives them
    Notable quotes:
    "... Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news. ..."
    "... "Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues. ..."
    "... What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read it? Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the source of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected? ..."
    "... Most of the time what people believes is not truth. Fake news is pervasive. ..."
    "... I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley. It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors? ..."
    "... Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence. ..."
    "... For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA. ..."
    "... Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking." ..."
    "... However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony. ..."
    "... "Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS? ..."
    "... Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own 90% of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities - why shouldn't they think they could get away with it? ..."
    "... Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now are called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels. Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from the top. And actually the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too compromised. So nobody believe anything published in them, even if they publish truth. libezkova -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 06:59 AM Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective problem-solving in ambiguous situations. His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966) had received some press in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672511487 It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic. You might be surprised by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against rumors. They feel that they lost trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do something to reverse this process. But they are barking to the wrong tree. ilsm -> libezkova... Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners in another. One opposed to tariffs and the central government growing strong from manufactures. The other for tariffs and weakening the slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination. ..."
    "... The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness doctrine was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership roles at the CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations. ..."
    "... Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud is (should be) illegal. ..."
    "... "Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who are adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned to this, because they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember Matrix. ..."
    "... Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together. ..."
    "... This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were still very important to people themselves in their lives. ..."
    "... These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important. ..."
    "... Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality, education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. ..."
    "... his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them." ..."
    "... People were expected to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29) ..."
    "... The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards), Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief, which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning. ..."
    "... All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse. ..."
    "... "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace." ..."
    "... Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer, jury and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back. ..."
    "... Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot more long-term harm to society than most people realize. ..."
    "... Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot! Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign and his subsequent behavior. ..."
    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    The Economics of Fake News Environmental and Urban Economics

    I see that Paul Krugman is talking abou t the consequences of Fake News so I will enter this market and supply some thoughts. I will define fake news as stories that are "juicy" but not true.

    Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news.

    ... ... ...

    There are four cases to consider.

    • Case #1: Both the supplier and demander know that the story is false. Think of the National Enquirer stories stating that Elvis is on Mars.
    • Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes the story is true.
    • Case #3: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story is true.
    • Case #4: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story is false.

    "Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues.

    I believe that Dr. K is mainly concerned with Case #2. What % of all suspect stories fall into this category? Dr. K has a cynical model in mind in which sophisticated agents (think of Trump and Putin) manipulate the gullible public with messages and then the Facebook and Internet accelerate this information throughout the system as it infects billions and influences real events.

    Case #2 raises some deep issues, I will state them as questions;

    1. What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read it? Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the source of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected?

    2. In public health, we quarantine those who may spread contagion. Is Dr. K. calling for a messaging quarantine of the "susceptible people" or is he proposing ending free speech for those who spread the contagion?

    3. If there is objective reality, do those who are susceptible to "fake news" update their beliefs as this reality changes over time?

    4. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and profit maximizing news sellers what are pareto improving government interventions? When I taught at the Fletcher School, one student suggested that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring people to watch the PBS News Hour each night.

    5. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and Russian propagandist news suppliers, what are pareto improving government interventions for the nations that Russia is targeting with this news? So, the U.S is fighting a war on terror ---- will we now open up a "second front" as we start a "war on foreign propaganda"?

    6. Why has "fake news" become an issue now? What is it about 2016? Has Facebook made communication "too cheap"? Has Russia recognized this opportunity and increased its supply of fake news? In the old days, Pravda was filled with such news.

    ... ... ...

    ilsm : January 08, 2017 at 04:30 AM

    On Kahn's analysis of fake news.

    Most of the time what people believes is not truth. Fake news is pervasive.

    ilsm -> ilsm... , January 08, 2017 at 04:54 AM
    On Assange:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/wikileaks-criticizes-obama-administration-in-rather-ironic-way-173523707.html

    The guys who leak documents for a living pointing out the establish leaks them to sway opinion!

    I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley. It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors?

    RGC -> ilsm... , January 08, 2017 at 06:03 AM
    US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack' , January 7, 2017
    ................
    Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.

    For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking."

    There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there were two separate sources, the DNC material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly a U.S. intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

    In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden.

    However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony.
    ....................
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/07/us-report-still-lacks-proof-on-russia-hack/

    JohnH -> RGC...
    "Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS?

    Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own 90% of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities - why shouldn't they think they could get away with it?

    libezkova -> ilsm... , January 08, 2017 at 06:20 AM

    Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now are called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels.

    Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from the top.

    And actually the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too compromised. So nobody believe anything published in them, even if they publish truth.

    libezkova -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 06:59 AM

    Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective problem-solving in ambiguous situations.

    His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966) had received some press in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672511487

    It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic.

    You might be surprised by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against rumors. They feel that they lost trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do something to reverse this process. But they are barking to the wrong tree.

    ilsm -> libezkova...
    Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners in another. One opposed to tariffs and the central government growing strong from manufactures. The other for tariffs and weakening the slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination.

    Peace and freedom are not valued in the US or many other places.

    yuan -> ilsm.. .
    The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness doctrine was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership roles at the CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations.

    Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud is (should be) illegal.

    libezkova -> ilsm... January 08, 2017 at 11:09 AM
    "It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination."

    Exactly. That's why those people who question MSM coverage, and who try to get the "second opinion" on the current events from blogs, and other alternative channels are considered to be traitors.

    Neoliberal MSMs are major producer of fake news as in foreign coverage they are guided by State Department talking points. What they are adamantly against is "somebody else" fake news. They want full monopoly on coverage.

    What they trying to tell us during this McCarthyism compaign is the following: "Unapproved, rogue fake news of questionable origin are evil, only State Department approved fakes are OK".

    This is another, slightly more interesting, variant of "political correctness" enforcement in a given society.

    "Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who are adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned to this, because they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember Matrix.

    There is a special term for the psychological condition of the large part of the USSR population who adapted to live such an "artificial, fake reality" and even may protest if they are provided with a more objective picture as this created a cognitive dissonance. It is Stockholm Syndrome. The condition common among the members of "high demand" cults.

    The same happened in the USA. This neoliberal ideological captivity with its own set of myths and falsehood reminds me USSR Bolshevism ideology, which was an official, dominant ideology for Soviet people. Indoctrination was obligatory.

    The net results was the same as now in the USA -- the dead ideology burdens, like a nightmare, the minds of the living.

    As Marx noted: "history repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce"

    Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book "Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation" called this condition of ideological Stockholm syndrome "hypernormalization"

    https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forever-Until-More-Formation/dp/0691121176

    He argues that during the last 20 or so years of the Soviet Union, everyone in the USSR knew the system wasn't working, but as no one has real alternative and both politicians and citizens were resigned to pretending that the can should be kicked down the road. A typical attitude of Hillary supporters.

    This "constant pretending" was accepted as normal behavior and the fake reality thus created was accepted as necessary evil, nessesary for normal functining of the society. The whole society reminded me large "high demand" cult from which members can't escape.

    While Yurchak called this effect "hypernormalisation." in reality this probably should be called "ideological Stockholm syndrome". Stockholm syndrome is a psychological condition that causes hostages to develop sympathetic sentiments towards their captors, often sharing their opinions and acquiring romantic feelings for them as a survival strategy during captivity.

    Looking at events over the past few years, one would notice that the neoliberal society is experiencing the same psychological condition.

    Here are a couple of insightful reviews of the book

    == quote ==

    Igor Biryukov on November 1, 2012

    A cautionary tale

    In America there was once a popular but simplistic image of the Soviet Russia as the Evil Empire destined to fall, precisely because it was unfree and therefore evil. Ronald Reagan who advocated it also once said that the Russian people do not have a word for "freedom". Not so fast -- says Alexei Yurchak.

    He was born in the Soviet Union and became a cultural anthropologist in California. He employs linguistic structural analysis in very interesting ways. For him, the Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people -- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable.

    Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together.

    According to Yurchak "In its first three or four years, perestroika was not much more than a deconstruction of Soviet authoritative discourse".

    This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit.

    The demise of the Soviet Union was not caused by anti-modernity or backwardness of Russian people.

    The Soviet experiment was a cousin of Western modernity and shared many features with the Western democracies, in particular its roots in the Enlightenment project.

    The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were still very important to people themselves in their lives.

    These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important.

    For many "socialism" was a system of human values and everyday realities which wasn't necessarily equivalent of the official interpretation provided by the state rhetoric.

    Yurchak starts with a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between ideological enunciation, which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment, and ideological rule, which are the practical concerns of the modern state's political authority. In Soviet Union the paradox was "solved" by means of dogmatic political closure and elevation of Master signifier [Lenin, Stalin, Party] but it doesn't mean the Western democracies are immune to totalitarian temptation to which the Soviet Union had succumbed.

    The vast governmental bureaucracy and Quango-state are waiting in the shadows here as well, may be ready to appropriate discourse.

    It is hard to agree with everything in his book. But it is an interesting perspective.

    ... ... ...

    Nils Gilmanon April 23, 2014

    A brilliant account of the interior meaning of everyday life for ordinary soviet citizens

    Just loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship, through strategies of ignoring the powerful, focusing on hyperlocal socialities, treating ritualized support for the regime as little more than an annoying chore, and withdrawal into subcultures.

    Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality, education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population.

    While his entire account is a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under the Soviet system, Yurchak also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed for some people (such as theoretical physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways freer than for their peers in the West. All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an explanation for the nostalgia that many in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable to those who claim that Communism was simply and nothing but an evil.

    The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime. One might say that his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them."

    Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an official resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement of regime support, nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29)

    The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards), Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief, which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning.

    Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature, join a rock band or art collective, take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their (inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.

    ilsm -> libezkova ... Sunday, January 08, 2017 at 12:20 PM

    You should read the whole of Obama's Nobel peace prize lecture:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

    "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace."

    Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer, jury and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back.

    JohnH -> yuan... January 08, 2017 at 12:08 PM

    yuan never had the pleasure of watching the mainstream media promote the official Kool-Aid during the Vietnam War...until the lies finally became untenable.

    DeDude -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 11:38 AM

    "the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too compromised"

    Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot more long-term harm to society than most people realize.

    Being a knowledgeable person who spend half a lifetime studying a subject, seems to be worse than being a regular ignorant guy confidently pulling stuff out of his ass. We are living in interesting times.

    JohnH -> DeDude...

    "As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse." Wow! Trying to judge the more credible liar.

    Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot! Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign and his subsequent behavior.

    [Jan 12, 2017] Many Areas of Appalachia and Mississippi Delta Have Lower Life Expectancy Than Bangladesh

    Notable quotes:
    "... "A lot of the inequality in the U.S. comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government To the very considerable extent that inequality is generated by rent seeking, we could sharply reduce inequality itself if rent seeking were to be somehow reduced." ..."
    "... "In all areas of economics, the rules of the game are critical-that is emphasized by the fact that similar economics exhibit markedly different patterns of distribution, market income, and after tax and transfers income. This is especially so in an innovation economy, because innovation gives rise to rents-both from IPR and monopoly power. Who receives those rents is a matter of policy, and changes in the IPR regime have led to greater rents without having any effects on the pace of innovation," said Stigltz. ..."
    "... Other than the loss of income, he said, "many men in the Rust Belt in Appalachia have lost meaningful work and are unable to find another. People want work that provides them with some agency-they want a chance to prosper, to have the satisfaction of succeeding in something. They would also appreciate the experience of developing in the course of a career, to have self expression through imagining and creating new things. The good jobs in manufacturing offered these men the prospect of some learning, some challenges, and some attendant promotions. The bottom-rung jobs in retailing services that these men are forced to take do not. In losing their good jobs, then, these men were losing the meaning of their very lives. The rise of suicide and drug related deaths among Americans might be evidence of just that sense of loss." ..."
    "... The last four decades of slow growth in the U.S., said Phelps, fit Alvin Hansen's definition of secular stagnation "to a tee." Phelps traced the roots of this secular stagnation, characterized by slower growth and loss of innovation, to a "corporatist ideology that had come to permeate the government at all levels" starting with the 1960s, and has "replaced the individualist ideology supporting capitalism" ever since. ..."
    "... The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble. ..."
    "... I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured ..."
    "... Honestly, greed might just be so thoroughly baked into the makeup of base instinct that it is unreachable. My Father reminds me regularly that males are intrinsically sexually competitive, which drives them to acquire territory, resources, and access to females at whatever the cost. To ask humans not to be greedy is to be tinkering with deep biological drives tied to successful reproduction. ..."
    "... The last thirty years have been all about "firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government" while everyone has been talking about the opposite thing, "free markets". Why has it taken so long to notice this? ..."
    "... "Eat People" ..."
    "... The elites should worry the day when the mob turns from destructive introspection, to directed agency at an external foe. That foe being the rent seekers and economic manipulators of injustice. Propaganda and monopoly violence don't last forever, and the hysterical response of the bourgeoisie to this possibility is what we are witnessing. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Trump's unexpected Presidential win appears to have delivered a wake-up call to the economics discipline. At a major industry conference, the annual Allied Social Sciences Associations meeting, a blue-chip panel of four Nobel Prize winners, Angus Deaton, Joe Stiglitz, Roger Myerson and Edmund Phelps, was in surprising agreement that capitalism had become unmoored and in its current form was exacerbating inequality. These may seem like pedestrian observations, but the severity of the critique, as reported in the Pro-Market blog , was striking.

    No video of the panel is available yet; I hope one is released soon and will post it if/when that happens.

    Tellingly, even though the panelists also included a fall in innovation, globalization and secular stagnation as contributing to inequality, the discussion focused on rent-seeking.

    Deaton was blistering by the normally judicious standards of the academy. Recall that he and his wife Anne Case performed the landmark study, published at the end of 2015, that showed that the death rate had increased among less educated middle aged whites, due largely to addiction and suicides . Thus the plight of economic losers is more vivid to Deaton than his peers, and he sees the disastrous human cost as a direct result of rent-seeeking and untrammeled monopolies. Key extracts :

    "A lot of the inequality in the U.S. comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government To the very considerable extent that inequality is generated by rent seeking, we could sharply reduce inequality itself if rent seeking were to be somehow reduced."

    While some forms of inequality could be linked to progress and innovation, said Deaton, inequality in the U.S. does not stem from creative destruction. "A lot of the inequality in the U.S. is not like this. It comes from rent seeking. It comes from firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government," he said.

    Deaton highlighted a particularly salient example of rent seeking: the American health care system which, he said, "seems optimally designed for rent seeking and very poorly designed to improve people's health."

    Deaton outflanked Stiglitz on the left. Stiglitz argued that taxes could help reduce inequality, in concert with other policies to curb rent extraction:

    "In all areas of economics, the rules of the game are critical-that is emphasized by the fact that similar economics exhibit markedly different patterns of distribution, market income, and after tax and transfers income. This is especially so in an innovation economy, because innovation gives rise to rents-both from IPR and monopoly power. Who receives those rents is a matter of policy, and changes in the IPR regime have led to greater rents without having any effects on the pace of innovation," said Stigltz.

    Deaton begged to differ:

    "I don't think that rent seeking, which is incredibly profitable, is very sensitive to taxes at all. I don't think taxes are a good way of stopping rent seeking. People should deal with rent seeking by stopping rent seeking, not by taxing the rich," he said.

    Deaton is clearly outraged by how opiate manufacturers (meaning Purdue Pharma) have profited by killing poor whites:

    "There are around 200 thousand people who have died from the opioid epidemic, were victims of iatrogenic medicine and disease caused by the medical profession, or from drugs that should not have been prescribed for chronic pain but were pushed by pharmaceutical companies, whose owners have become enormously rich from these opioids," said Deaton, who later advocated for a single-payer health care system in the U.S., saying: "I am a great believer in the market, but I think we need a single-payer health care system. I just don't see any other sensible way to address it in this country."

    Mind you, the Case/Deaton study, despite its shattering findings, got front page treatment and then the press and pundits moved on to the next hot news tidbit. Matt Stoller had a tweetstorm yesterday on this issue, related to the impending revamping, which almost certainly means further crapification, of Obamacare. You can read the whole tweetstorm staring here . These were the linchpin of his argument:

    ... ... ...

    Edmund Phelps, who leans conservative but is know for being eclectic, echoed Deaton's observations:

    Other than the loss of income, he said, "many men in the Rust Belt in Appalachia have lost meaningful work and are unable to find another. People want work that provides them with some agency-they want a chance to prosper, to have the satisfaction of succeeding in something. They would also appreciate the experience of developing in the course of a career, to have self expression through imagining and creating new things. The good jobs in manufacturing offered these men the prospect of some learning, some challenges, and some attendant promotions. The bottom-rung jobs in retailing services that these men are forced to take do not. In losing their good jobs, then, these men were losing the meaning of their very lives. The rise of suicide and drug related deaths among Americans might be evidence of just that sense of loss."

    The last four decades of slow growth in the U.S., said Phelps, fit Alvin Hansen's definition of secular stagnation "to a tee." Phelps traced the roots of this secular stagnation, characterized by slower growth and loss of innovation, to a "corporatist ideology that had come to permeate the government at all levels" starting with the 1960s, and has "replaced the individualist ideology supporting capitalism" ever since.

    Even though the panelists disagreed somewhat on remedies, all were troubled by Trump's policy proposals However, it's still telling that even if protectionism might not be a great remedy (or would have to be applied surgically to yield meaningful net gains, something Trump's team appears unwilling to game out), the group seemed constitutionally unable to accept that globalization had made the working classes in the US worse off even when that is exactly what the Samuelson-Stopler theorem predicted. For instance:

    Phelps, for instance, criticized Trump's assertion that job and income losses among the American working class were caused by trade and not by losses of innovation, and the President-elect's "assumption that supply-side measures to boost after-tax corporate profits will bring generally heightened incomes and employment to America," which he said runs the risk of explosion in public debt and a deep recession.

    The most hazardous, said Phelps, "is the assumption that by bullying corporations, such as Ford, and stepping in to aid other corporations, such as Google, the Trump administration can achieve various objectives that will widely boost employment."

    Nevertheless, the very fact that a panel like this didn't even dispute the claim that rent-seeking was the biggest contributor to the big jump in inequality is in and of itself a big step forward.

    I wish Deaton would go a speaking tour of wealthy Democratic Party enclaves or become regular on NPR (assuming the tote-bag carrying classes did not swiftly demand his removal). The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.

    Synoia , January 12, 2017 at 5:14 am

    The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.

    Either these words, although I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured, or class violence, coupled with a decline and fall of Continental empire.

    The US is the only remaining 19th century empire, all the others have fallen to self-determination, and the EU appears to be falling apart for the same reasons.

    I Have Strange Dreams , January 12, 2017 at 5:44 am

    I am not optimistic that the greed can be punctured

    That is it in a nutshell. Greed. One destructive emotion has been elevated as the guiding principle for our Western societies. The fail is baked into the cake. We are monkeys with nuclear weapons and Donald Trump is the new leader of the Free World™. What could possibly go wrong?

    knowbuddhau , January 12, 2017 at 9:01 am

    > We are monkeys with nuclear weapons.

    Monkeys have tails. We're naked apes with nukes.

    Jane Goodall reported on a chimp who hit on the novel tactic of banging fuel cans together to achieve alpha status. The noise scared his competitors witless. He didn't know what the cans were, what they were for, or what they held, but it worked anyway. For a little while.

    There's a lesson in there somewhere.

    Art Eclectic , January 12, 2017 at 12:18 pm

    Honestly, greed might just be so thoroughly baked into the makeup of base instinct that it is unreachable. My Father reminds me regularly that males are intrinsically sexually competitive, which drives them to acquire territory, resources, and access to females at whatever the cost. To ask humans not to be greedy is to be tinkering with deep biological drives tied to successful reproduction.

    Fiver , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    Except we have millions upon millions of individual instances of US men over whom greed holds no power, and scores of historical societies and even today a handful of countries so constituted and evolved over time that there simply is no comparison on a scale of 'greed' with what goes on in the US.

    Greed obviously has a biological basis, as does everything else humans do, but culture is quite capable of virtually erasing it.

    UserFriendly , January 12, 2017 at 5:40 am

    The webcast of the nobel pannel is here:
    https://www.aeaweb.org/webcasts/2017/nobels.php

    But if you guys find a copy of this panel, also mentioned in the pro market article, please post it.

    "The Vested Interests Versus Rational Public Policy: Economists as Public Intellectuals," Stiglitz and Baker, along with James K. Galbraith of University of Texas at Austin, Stephanie Kelton from the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Lawrence Mishel from the Economic Policy Institute discussed competition, trade, consumer protections, and how to reach effective public policy. "We need to rewrite the rules of the market economy," said Stiglitz during the same panel.

    ian , January 12, 2017 at 5:48 am

    The last thirty years have been all about "firms and industry seeking special protection or special favors from the government" while everyone has been talking about the opposite thing, "free markets". Why has it taken so long to notice this?

    Left in Wisconsin , January 12, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    Very effective propaganda and a complicit MSM. I will say it again: spend a day or two at any statehouse in the country and you will see that the ENTIRE business of government is doing favors for business people and their lobbyists. The notion that business people are in favor of small or non-activist government is a big lie.

    Which gets to a point that seems to get glossed over even by the better economists – that corporate "investment" in lobbying generally has a way better ROI than real investment, often times on the order of 1000-to-1 (for specific tax breaks).

    I don't get what Deaton is saying about rent-seeking. Surely the return of the 90% tax bracket for high incomes and estates would put a dent into modern rent-seeking. When he says, "People should deal with rent seeking by stopping rent seeking, not by taxing the rich," what kind of policies is he talking about? Does he mean single payer, and extended that kind of economic organization to other industries? Once you get outside health care, that seems kind of radical for an economist.

    ambrit , January 12, 2017 at 6:23 am

    The Mississippi Delta is just north of where we live. The "rent seeking" is mixed up with Paternalism. Each feeds off of the other. What we have seen in our multi year search for affordable living space has been an unending stream of overpriced habitats, and insularity.

    The Paternalism encourages an ethos of exploitation, the rent seeking finances it. At root, all these "base" motivations are "rational." Thus, any "rational" critique undergirds the edifice of selfishness.

    A corollary of this is that any significant change requires a clean break with the past. An irrational ideology needs must arise, if only for long enough to nurture a radical change. As with the present American experience, an absurd excess is needed, and is looming. It sounds hardhearted, but a cleansing fire must purge the dross from out the gold of the nations soul. Before we allow horrified sentiment to deter us from this course, we must remember that the present system is itself the embodiment of hardheartedness. Why else do many cultures have a myth of a Phoenix in their socio-cultural tool kit? It has happened before. It will happen again.

    As someone more erudite than myself likes to say; "Kill it with fire."

    PlutoniumKun , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 am

    My only worry is that when mainstream economists start accepting the problem of rent seeking, their solution is usually 'better, freer markets'. Its this logic which did so much damage to the national electricity networks of Europe and the UK railway system and (my personal bugbear), the domestic waste collection system in Europe. There is sometimes a fine distinction between highly regulated markets which benefit both private companies and the consumer (for example, in electricity generation and distribution), and manipulated regulated markets which benefit only the seller, such as with medicines.

    cocomaan , January 12, 2017 at 9:24 am

    Plus, from what I am gathering from the summary, statements about how it was innovation that destroyed jobs and not globalization seem to ignore the fact that the retraining and skills reeducation that's supposed to happen after "disruption" has become rent seeking.

    Education has become a massive, government controlled, rent seeking operation in the form of student loans. Anyone seeking to better themselves with education now has become a victim.

    Are taxes going to solve that, according to Stiglitz? As you say, is it going to be a "freer markets" solution? I don't know.

    Art Eclectic , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    Innovation destroyed jobs because Silicon Valley investors realized that corporations would pay HUGE dollars for new processes that eliminated people. Human labor is an enormous cost, not just in wages but in support (that useless HR team), benefits, and worst of all – pensions. The goal of the modern corporation is to reduce head count, not to make better and more innovative products/services. Once the investment community clued in on that, it was all about finding new ways to eliminate jobs.

    Andy Kessler's book "Eat People" is all about this topic.

    Normal , January 12, 2017 at 6:43 am

    I'm not an economist but even I can see that trade can increase average income while decreasing incomes at the bottom of the distribution. Am I missing the point or are the Nobel laureates missing it?

    Do they think that some new industry will appear by magic to fill the void?

    Kat , January 12, 2017 at 6:48 am

    Wow! If this is what it takes to capture the attention of the American elites then I think this society needs to think really hard about what's up with it.

    KurtisMayfield , January 12, 2017 at 6:57 am

    I wish Deaton would go a speaking tour of wealthy Democratic Party enclaves or become regular on NPR (assuming the tote-bag carrying classes did not swiftly demand his removal). The gap between the elite professionals and the heartlands is so wide than only someone with unimpeachable credentials like his might penetrate their Panglossian bubble.

    You are never going to get the 10% to admit that their lifestyles are not possible without the underlying economic conditions described at this website. All you have to do is look at Massachusetts and see what "liberalism" has become there to understand this. The NIMBYism is rampant, and the isolation of minorities and people of other classes is so obvious that no one can deny that it happens. Most of the employment is so dependent on the rent seeking (Education, Biotech and Pharma, Technology, Medical) that there is no way that they could be convinced of another way.

    Carolinian , January 12, 2017 at 8:48 am

    I believe you are right and the hysteria after the recent election demonstrates this resistance to change (even if in the current case it may turn out to be bad change). The whole rationale of our so-called democracy is to allow change at the top without resorting to violence which is why attacks on the democratic process itself are the most sinister. Therefore the most interesting story of 2016 may not be the dreary two year slog itself but what happened afterwards. One comes to suspect that large portions of the "progressive" left have even less interest in democracy than the Republicans do. If only those pesky proles could be kept down the comfortable middle class of Boston could rest easy.

    It's probably true that only when those middle class professionals themselves start to feel economic pain that we will see more enthusiasm for leveling and social cohesion. A crash in the stock market might do it or–god forbid–riots and chaos but it doesn't seem like there's a painless way out.

    allan , January 12, 2017 at 8:31 am

    Deaton highlighted a particularly salient example of rent seeking: the American health care system which, he said, "seems optimally designed for rent seeking and very poorly designed to improve people's health."

    There is rent seeking even within sectors. Yesterday's Links had an article about large layoffs at one of the premier academic cancer centers, driven by losses due to overruns in implementing an electronic health records system.
    Sh*t flows to the bottom and money floats to the top.

    Norb , January 12, 2017 at 8:55 am

    The elites should worry the day when the mob turns from destructive introspection, to directed agency at an external foe. That foe being the rent seekers and economic manipulators of injustice. Propaganda and monopoly violence don't last forever, and the hysterical response of the bourgeoisie to this possibility is what we are witnessing.

    We need a new term or word for the class of people dedicated to the spread of inequality. The terms bourgeoisie, corporatists, capitalists, and fascists have been rendered ineffectual in raising the consciousness of working people to their plight. Occupy brought the 1% into consciousness, but there still is a lingering faith that somehow the business community can provide the necessities for a good life, if only "something" can be done to "free" their creative potential. My take on the Fake News phenomenon is yet another phase to keep the working population even more confused and misdirected. It is a strategy to double down on propaganda. Propaganda questioning the validity of propaganda.

    In America, the psychic health of the nation is coming into question. Leadership that can provide a vestige of calm amid the rising storm brought about by economic uncertainty will easily gain followers. The crisis of leadership is daily becoming more acute.

    Maybe a better strategy would be to come up with a new term for the 80% ruthlessly exploited by the current system. A new term is needed because all others have been corrupted into impotence.

    Eclair , January 12, 2017 at 9:53 am

    "In American, the psychic health of the nation is coming into question."

    We are confused, in denial, projecting furiously Freud would have a field-day exploring our cognitive dissonance. All this 'fake news' has begun to undermine our vision of ourselves as 'the exceptional nation;' our mental pictures of soldiers handing out candy bars to starving child refugees have morphed into drone operators taking out toddlers at wedding parties.

    We have elders preaching the American virtues of 'self reliance,' 'personal responsibility,' and the dangers of being coddled by an inefficient nanny state, while enjoying the benefits of a guaranteed monthly social security check deposited into their bank accounts, and having their hip replacements and open heart surgeries paid for by Medicare.

    We are still entranced by our national narrative of 'go west, young man,' with acres of fertile prairie and lush coastal valleys ours for the taking; all we need to follow is our sacred 'work ethic' and success will be ours. Well, all the land is posted 'Private' and the water is in the process of being purchased by faceless corporate entities. And the native Americans, whose land we stole, are pissed and getting organized.

    Spot on, Norb. We need new words, a new national narrative, a new vision of where we are, what crimes we committed to get here, how we have managed to bring the planet to the brink of destruction and, finally, how we can salvage what remains and forge a new identity, a better and more sustainable story.

    Until then, the next few years (decades?) will be messy. But filled with promise.

    Brian , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 am

    The Webcast is up: https://www.aeaweb.org/webcasts/2017/nobels.php

    oho , January 12, 2017 at 10:31 am

    for all of the Media/Academia Left's obsession w/identity politics, the issues facing poor, rural African-Americas are forgotten and "uncool" to address-just as with Appalachian whites.

    sad.

    flora , January 12, 2017 at 10:35 am

    Over several months many commenters have said something like the following: there can't be any real deflation because prices keep going up. Food, health care, rents, etc. If there's deflation why aren't prices coming down?

    My opinion is you can have real deflation *and* increasing prices at the retail level if those prices are determined by monopoly pricing power – price jacking and uncontrolled rent seeking, which is what I think we have now. Iinstead of lowering prices for the little guy deflation increases the profits for the monopolists and rentiers through lowered base costs for them coupled with higher selling prices for customers, plus fees and other purely extractive costs. Monopolists and rentiers have deformed various markets in a way such that deflation *and* higher selling/access prices can co-exist, imo.

    Great post. Thanks

    flora , January 12, 2017 at 11:00 am

    Longer comment lost in modland. Shorter: It's possible to have both deflation and rising sale prices if monopolists and rentiers are setting the sale price. imo.

    Great post. Thanks.

    Paul Whittaker , January 12, 2017 at 11:18 am

    I keep hearing the idea that innovation can provide jobs: algorithms and robots consume many more than they produce, AI is taking jobs from insurance agents in Japan, all seem to point the other way. So the response is a basic minimum income, but with so much wealth off shored to tax havens and the rest building bombs to replace the ones being dropped daily, where do the experts see the money coming from? Sooner or later the mass' will have to stop buying the glossy widgets which pays for the yachts and mansions.

    dbk , January 12, 2017 at 11:53 am

    Yves, thanks very much for this. Speaking for myself, I'd really appreciate more posts/guest posts on this and related topics.

    I'm currently reading Joe Bageant's Deer Hunting with Jesus, which addresses the desperation of small-town northern Virginia – I knew Bageant's work (had read his essays), but the book is great. Separate chapters, btw, on the mortgage scam in his hometown (for trailers, for heavens' sake) and on the health care system and how that's working out in rural Virginia (it's not, and it's a national disgrace).

    Also apropos, yesterday I followed a post/thread on LGM (I know a few commenters here also follow them, I'm a big Erik Loomis fan). Post here: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/01/the-philosophy-of-the-new-gilded-age#comments

    It riffed off a piece by some person called Ben Shapiro, who was venting about health care being a consumer product (he compared it to buying expensive furniture). I think I finally realized that there are some people whose understanding of the value of human life and the basic rights of man differ so much from my own that the divide cannot be bridged, ever. (He also sort of compared sb who needs medical treatment but can't afford it to stealing bread. Made me wonder if he and his physician-wife had recently caught a production of Les Miserables.) I was so appalled at his thinking I couldn't even comment on the post.

    I can't see how rent-seeking is to be reduced given the incoming regime, which appears to me to be filled with rent-seekers of the highest order.

    It's heartening to see renowned economists identifying these issues (poverty/unemployment/increasing morbidity-mortality rates) as a genuine crisis – which it is, and it's only going to get worse; in a few years, it won't be the lower and middle classes that are affected, but the white-collar professional classes as well (i.e. the top 10%).

    But as my Dad used to say, it's somehow "a day late and and a dollar short" – the Dems should have been addressing this crisis years ago – if a humble citizen-observer like this commenter saw it as a serious issue ten years ago, why didn't the professional policy guys?

    juliania , January 12, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    I wouldn't just credit the Trump candidacy for shining the light on rent seekers, but kudos to Yves for hosting economists who have also done this, among them Michael Hudson and (to a lesser degree) Bill Black.

    At the risk of seeming un-intellectual, I confess to having been also enlightened by library reading the works of John Grisham – his theme is often how lawyers profit or do not profit from big pharma medications that are introduced with great fanfare only to be discovered as the cause of injury and/or death a few miles down the road. At which point the victims are rounded up by low-income lawyers seeking a big windfall. One only has to be aware of certain tv commercials to realize this is still happening, and it happens to low income people for the most part. In the novels they are always the ultimate victims, no matter what the outcome of the lawsuits. The money changes hands, but the poor get shafted.

    dbk , January 12, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    juliana – I like Grisham a lot, too; the fact that he is himself a native of the "poor south" (Arkansas, Mississippi) lends a gritty realism to his novels. More members of the credentialed classes should read him, maybe they'd understand what's happening in the heartland better.

    sleepy , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    I've never much cared for his legal thrillers, but I was really impressed by his semi-autobiographical novel, "A Painted House" set in rural east Arkansas in the 50s. My mother was from a small farm in that area and I grew up not far away in Memphis and visited east Arkansas often as a kid in the 50s and 60s. I am Grisham's age and the novel was spot on in my experience

    PKMKII , January 12, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    Thinking out loud here, so take with a grain of salt: could IPR-related rents be fixed by switching the "carrot" from monopoly on the IP to tax credits? Instead of "You are the only one that gets to sell this for X years, unless others pay you a fee," the creator of the IP gets a tax credit equal to a certain % of sales and/or profits that others make from use of said IP. This would, of course, be a non-transferable right to the credit; some company cannot come along and buy it out from the creator, nor can it be passed along to next of kin. Creator gets compensation, consumers avoid the artificial rent cost, and by opening up the IP to the market, competition and refinements can begin immediately.

    flora , January 12, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    shorter: current Bangladesh life expectancy is: males – ~ 70, females – ~73, total – ~71, world rank – 99th.

    The declining life expectancy for too many rural US populations, especially for females, is caused by increased deaths in the 45-55 age range. Fewer are reaching the age of 60 or 70. Ergo, these areas have lower than Bangladesh's overall life expectancy. These early US deaths are numerous enough to lower the overall life expectancy of the US cohort, which is shocking.

    flora , January 12, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    adding: while the lowered overall US life expectancies are still above overall Bangladesh's, in US counties with these large increased death rates in the 45-55 age cohort the the counties life expectancy is lower than Bangladesh. There are so many of these US counties and such a large percentage of the population that the overall US life expectancy has tilted down.

    UserFriendly , January 12, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    And all of them with such a low median household income.
    http://geof.red/m/4rv

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 12, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    If the life expectancy of someone born in 2016 is, say, 80, that assumes the eco-system, that is the planet, is still around in 2096.

    That's not a bad assumption.

    Less safe is the assumption is that it will be as hospitable as it has been in the last 80 years.

    My question, I guess, is, do they factor in Global Warming in calculating life expectancies?

    mrheem , January 12, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    I suggest reading 'Deep South' by Paul Theroux for a scorching look at the day-to-day life of the denizens of this area. That it might, in some areas, be compared to the 'Third World' is, tragically, a compliment. How can these conditions exist in the richest country in the world? And how can one be an American and tolerate this?

    Tim , January 12, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    What were the economic conditions in Cambodia prior to Pol Pot and the killing fields? I'm too young, but I that seemed to be a more modern tail of the 90% taking out the top 10%.

    There has to be some shred of truth to drive people to eliminate an entire swath of their population along economic lines only.

    DOY , January 12, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    Agree that this panel is very good news.

    But the term "rent seeking" doesn't have much punch. To a moderately well educated reader, It sounds like something we would all do in a "capitalistic" system and therefore, in some sense, rational, and exempt from the jaundiced, deep consideration it deserves.

    I believe that much of what ails us in the larger effort to make changes in (what's left of) the Republic, is our more or less universal aversion to using the proper vocabulary to address how one goes about "rent seeking," which is to engage in wholesale, long term and systematic bribery of public officials who can (and will) enshrine our sought for "market" advantages.

    When did "bribery" morph into "campaign finance"? There may have been a time and place in American history when there could be fine distinctions, maybe even legitimate distinctions, drawn between the two, but today? Any trip to "the Hill" or our state legislatures, to advocate for a policy or law-unsupported by a major league checkbook-will convince a person that the Congress, etc. has devolved into a massive "system" for soliciting money in exchange for agreeing to vote against the public interest.

    In short, I'd like to advocate that we bring back bribery into the "civic lexicon." The sooner the better.

    Binky , January 12, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    In a post-Reagan/Bush environment the third way Democrats simply adopted what seemed moderate in relation to the zeitgeist. The failure of all those poor rural people to pick up and move to where the jobs were is a choice which they must have rationally assessed the cost/benefit of and made decisions as autonomous adults.

    Their failure to educate and train for the jobs of the future was a choice. They were warned. Like we are being warned now that we are redundant or soon to be, replaceable by peasants from abroad or algorithms at home. I don't think we are going to get the Star Trek economy. I think we are getting the Logan's Run, Aldous Huxley, Eloi vs. Morlock economy.

    Winston , January 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm

    When factories left NE for Midwest, what did NE do about that rust belt? Nothing! Still festering. When factories left MW for South what did MW do?

    You should stop scapegoating foreigners. The problem lies within.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Monopsony Takes Center Stage -

    Jan 09, 2017 | promarket.org

    In October, the Council of Economic Advisors released a report about monopsony in the labor market. That alone was rather astonishing-employer power and its consequences for labor market outcomes has been a distinctly minority concern in the economics profession for quite a while, notwithstanding mounting evidence of its importance coming from a number of subfields .

    For that agenda to gain a hearing at the apex of economic policy-making is evidence of the shifting ground in matters of public economic debate. It is also reminiscent of the last time inequality was so high: then, as now, it sparked a sea change in the economics profession, including both the mainstreaming of labor exploitation as a subject of economic research and the founding of the American Economic Association .

    The key arguments in the CEA's paper draw on the evidence of rising inequality in firm-specific wages I referred to in my last ProMarket post . A key determinant of earnings is which firm a worker can gain access to, and a strategy for consolidating earnings at the top of the income distribution is outsourcing labor to subordinate firms so the circle of workers who get paid by the most profitable ones narrows to high earners, who are thus earning more than they have in a century. Interfirm inequality and firm-specific wages are canonical evidence of an uncompetitive labor market. After all, if workers were able to move freely between firms, that should equalize the pay workers of similar experience and education obtain across firms within an industry or geography.

    And yet, the further into the labor market you drill down , to workers in narrowly defined skill and experience groups, the more residual inequality is apparent-until you take into account the firms where they work.

    Declining labor mobility is further evidence of monopsony, especially given that it seems to be driven by the declining arrival rate of outside job offers and flattening earnings-tenure profiles . In my article on the subject with Mike Konczal , we showed that declining 'dynamism' is not driven by restrictions on labor supply like occupational licensing, but rather by slack labor demand-the classic symptom of monopsony power. And the consequences are concerning: not just rising inequality, but stagnant earnings over the course of careers and declining entrepreneurship and employment growth at young firms.

    The CEA brief focuses on the most obvious manifestations of unequal power in the labor market to come to light in recent years: noncompete clauses, which have extended their reach into sectors where they once were unknown. To teachers in charter schools , for example, which otherwise pride themselves on introducing competition into public education. Evidence suggests noncompete clauses deter worker job search , which is critical for wage gains over the course of a career. And they are imposed by employers even where they are legally unenforceable -in other words, the threat is what matters, and unlike in a competitive labor market, these restrictions on worker autonomy are not compensated by higher wages or any other compensating differential. The very fact that they are used and affect behavior where they have no legal basis is evidence for monopsony, because that implies wage and compensation indeterminacy within an employment match.

    The CEA brief also draws attention to the mere fact of concentration in the economy in general and in the share of employment in the largest firms. But those summary statistics in fact bely the reality of labor market monopsony, because there is a wage premium attached to the largest firms-though that premium has been declining for the lowest-paid workers , suggesting that the threat of outsourcing labor is disciplining the wage demands of workers at the greatest risk of being outsourced. Some suggest the fact of a large-firm wage premium is prima facie evidence against monopsony, but that interpretation ignores the strategic behavior around who gets to be part of the firm and who is pushed out. Studies of labor outsourcing events show that they do little other than reduce wages-thus employer power manifests precisely by excluding workers from firm-earnings premia.

    The brief also brings up the issue of occupational licensing, which the CEA covered in a previous report and which adds a similar anticompetitive flavor to the labor market as monopsony. The problem is that it goes in the opposite direction: the supposed threat of occupational licensing is that it accrues too much power to incumbent, licensed workers, increasing their wages at the expense of employers and would-be competitors. My aforementioned paper presents evidence against occupational licensing as having a major impact on the labor market-very possibly because the larger problem of monopsony counteracts its effects.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Labor Market Monopsony

    Notable quotes:
    "... reduced competition can also give employers power to dictate wages-so- called "monopsony" power in the labor market. ..."
    "... While monopoly in product markets and monopsony in labor markets can be related and share some common causes, the latter has some distinct causes and policy implications. ..."
    "... This issue brief explains how monopsony, or wage-setting power, in the labor market can reduce wages, employment, and overall welfare ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | www.whitehouse.gov
    A growing literature has documented several indicators of declining] competition in the United States, and economists have begun to explore the links between these trends and rising income inequality (Furman and Orzag 2015). While recent discussions have highlighted rising concentration among producers and monopoly pricing in sellers markets (The Economist 2016), reduced competition can also give employers power to dictate wages-so- called "monopsony" power in the labor market.

    While monopoly in product markets and monopsony in labor markets can be related and share some common causes, the latter has some distinct causes and policy implications.

    This issue brief explains how monopsony, or wage-setting power, in the labor market can reduce wages, employment, and overall welfare...

    [Jan 08, 2017] People from wealthier families have better social connections, allowing them to stay in jobs while not performing at par, or be hired into higher level positions as a favor to somebody.

    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    rayward : , January 07, 2017 at 05:16 AM
    Fund Managers: Do fund managers from less wealthy families have better performance (as compared to fund managers from wealthier families) because they have higher competence levels (the implication of the study supported by Taylor) or because they are willing to take on more risk (the implication of being less wealthy). I find the latter explanation more convincing: those growing up in wealthy families learn capital preservation, while those growing up in families with less wealth learn capital creation. Or not. Today, so-called alternative investments have become the norm, even (or especially) among not for profits, made famous by Yale's David Swensen. But Swensen was following a trend, a trend established among very wealthy families who pooled their wealth in search of higher returns necessitated by an increasing number of heirs to support. What otherwise rational people forget is that only in Lake Wobegon can everyone be above average. Everyone chasing the elusive higher return requires an increasing level of risk; hence, the emphasis on higher asset prices (i.e., speculation) and the risk of financial crises.
    cm -> rayward... , January 07, 2017 at 10:09 AM
    I don't know specifically for fund managers, but generally people from wealthier families have better social connections, allowing them to stay in jobs while not performing at par, or be hired into higher level positions as a favor to somebody.

    That doesn't necessarily mean they are better or worse, only that they get better observed outcomes.

    Somebody not well connected will probably be fired more quickly for underperforming or committing a blunder, and find it more difficult to be hired or promoted into "visible" positions to begin with.

    cm -> The People's Pawn... , January 07, 2017 at 10:09 AM
    "how to mirror the cultural cues of customers and hiring managers"

    I generally recognize these cues (of the genuinely cultural as well as the "probing/confirming social status differential" type - and perhaps not their meaning but their presence), but I have always found it difficult to tell the point where it goes from politeness and reasonable accommodation to servility, flattery, and general phoniness. So I have stayed more conservative in the "mirroring" or matching, which is of course not doing me any favors.

    And social behaviors are not necessarily "not rational" just because they cannot be described succinctly in a formal theory.

    Most social behaviors are about determining (assuming the presence of "cheaters" or "posers") whether the other side is trustworthy, in the sense of conforming to expectations and being able to deliver their part of a transaction. This requires that they are complex and not easily formalized, so they cannot be easily gamed by calculating manipulators.

    Primates are basically tribal, with trustworthiness being strongly associated with group-belonging.

    [Jan 04, 2017] Murdochs courtship of Blair finally pays off

    Notable quotes:
    "... IN JULY 1995, Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to cement his relationship with Rupert Murdoch at a News Corporation conference. Introducing him, the media tycoon joked: "If the British press is to be believed, today is all part of a Blair-Murdoch flirtation. If that flirtation is ever consummated, Tony, I suspect we will end up making love like two porcupines - very carefully." ..."
    Jan 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> anne... , January 04, 2017 at 11:20 AM
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/murdochs-courtship-of-blair-finally-pays-off-1144087.html

    February 10, 1998

    Murdoch's courtship of Blair finally pays off
    By Fran Abrams and Anthony Bevins

    IN JULY 1995, Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to cement his relationship with Rupert Murdoch at a News Corporation conference. Introducing him, the media tycoon joked: "If the British press is to be believed, today is all part of a Blair-Murdoch flirtation. If that flirtation is ever consummated, Tony, I suspect we will end up making love like two porcupines - very carefully."

    For Mr Blair, the relationship bore fruit when he was elected with the key support of the Sun. But Mr Murdoch had to wait until yesterday for full satisfaction when No 10 launched a passionate attack on his critics after the Lords passed an anti-Murdoch amendment to the Competition Bill.

    A year earlier, few Labour MPs would have believed such a scene was possible....

    [Jan 04, 2017] Tony Atkinson has died

    Notable quotes:
    "... Inequality: What can be done? ..."
    Jan 04, 2017 | crookedtimber.org
    2017 started off badly, with the death of Tony Atkinson – the most important economist working on inequality, poverty (in affluent societies), the economics of the welfare state, and 'optimal taxation'. Academics who have known Atkinson have lost one of the most humane, wise and gentle of their colleagues, who was genuinely caring about other people in his work as well as in his interactions with them.

    The world at large has lost a wise welfare economist who was the Godfather of modern inequality analysis and therefore (and for other reasons) should have received the Nobel Prize . Without his work, inequality metrics and knowledge on social security mechanisms wouldn't be what they are now; he continued working on normative welfare economics throughout the decades in which it wasn't fashionable at all (I am not sure it is fashionable again, but at least I hope that the recent hugely popular and influential work by Thomas Piketty has improved the status of inequality analysis among economists.)

    Atkinson's work on how to effectively protect the poor and decrease inequalities will be badly needed in the years to come, so luckily he has left us a goldmine of scholarly papers and academic books, including most recently Inequality: What can be done? which doesn't require an economics degree to be understood.

    For Thomas Piketty's obituary of Atkinson, see here .

    Tabasco 01.03.17 at 11:08 pm Yes he should have won the Nobel and others less deserving won it the past 5-10 years when he could have won it. But that's the way it goes. It's a nice obit by Piketty. I liked how he called Atkinson, "a citizen of, respectively, the United Kingdom, Europe, and the world", which is a direct shot as the Euro nationalists and their enablers.

    A slightly odd note was Piketty's use of the euphemism, "a long illness", which many obit writers use when they mean cancer, but can't bring themselves to write the c-word. It's odd coming from Piketty who normally doesn't mince his words.

    Tom 01.04.17 at 12:39 am ( 5 )

    Am I reading too much into the fact that the Financial Times published an obituary before the Guardian did ('has yet done' at the time of my comment)?

    derrida derider 01.04.17 at 2:14 am A sad loss of someone who, as Piketty notes, centred his work around the insight that economics was before all else a branch of applied moral philosophy. And at a personal level the epitome of an old fashioned scholar and a gentleman.

    [Jan 04, 2017] Passing of Anthony B. Atkinson

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings ..."
    "... The Distribution of Personal Wealth in Britain ..."
    "... Les hauts revenus en France au 20 e sičcle ..."
    Jan 04, 2017 | blog.lemonde.fr
    Thomas Piketty

    Anthony B. Atkinson passed away in the morning of January 1st 2017, at the age of 72, after a long illness. This leaves us with an invaluable loss.

    Anthony " Tony " Atkinson occupies a unique place among economists. During the past half-century, in defiance of prevailing trends, he placed the question of inequality at the center of his work while demonstrating that economics is first and foremost a social and moral science.

    Tony was born in 1944 and published his first book in 1969. Between 1969 and 2016, he wrote over forty books and more than 350 scholarly articles . They have brought about a profound transformation in the broader field of international studies of inequality, poverty and the distribution of income and wealth. Since the 1970s, he has also written major theoretical papers, devoted in particular to the theory of optimal taxation. Atkinson was always interested in practical issues of public policy and social justice, and understood that marrying theoretical analysis with a careful look at the actual data was the most powerful way to make progress.

    Atkinson's most important and profound work has to do with the historical and empirical analysis of inequality, carried out within a theoretical frame that he deploys with impeccable mastery and utilizes with caution and moderation. With his distinctive approach, at once historical, empirical, and theoretical; with his extreme rigor and his unquestioned probity; with his ethical reconciliation of his roles as researcher in the social sciences and citizen of, respectively, the United Kingdom, Europe, and the world, Atkinson has himself for decades been a model for generations of students and young researchers.

    Together with Simon Kuznets, Atkinson single-handedly originated a new discipline within the social sciences and political economy: the study of historical trends in the distribution of income and wealth. Of course, the question of distribution and long-term trends already lay at the heart of nineteenth-century political economy, particularly in the work of Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx. But these writers could draw only upon limited data, and were frequently obliged to limit themselves to purely theoretical speculation.

    It was not until the second half of the twentieth century and the research of Kuznets and Atkinson that analyses of distribution of income and wealth could actually be based on historical sources. In his 1953 masterwork, Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings , Kuznets combined the first systematic records of American national income and property (records that he himself had helped to create) and the data produced by the federal income tax (established in 1913, in the aftermath of a prolonged political battle), to establish the very first historical account of year-by-year income distribution.

    In 1978, in The Distribution of Personal Wealth in Britain , a fundamental book (co-written with Allan Harrison), Atkinson outstripped and overtook Kuznets: he made systematic use of British probate records from the 1910s to the 1970s to analyze in magisterial fashion the extent to which different economic, social, and political forces can help us understand the developments observed in the distribution of wealth, a distribution that was particularly under scrutiny during this period of exceptional turbulence. As compared to Kuznets' book, which was mostly concerned with the construction of the statistical database, Atkinson's book goes a step further, in the sense that it better articulates the data collection with the historical and theoretical analysis.

    All subsequent work on historic trends in income and wealth inequality to a certain extent follow in the wake of Kuznets's and Atkinson's groundbreaking studies. In particular, the " World Wealth and Income Database " ( WID.world ) can be viewed as a mere continuation of the Atkinson-Kuznets agenda.

    At a more personal level, I was very fortunate to meet Tony when I was a young student at the London School of Economics in the fall of 1991. His many advices, always delivered with infinite care and kindness, had a decisive impact on my trajectory. Soon after I published Les hauts revenus en France au 20 e sičcle , in 2001, I had the chance to benefit from his enthusiastic support. Tony was the first reader of my historical work on inequality in France and immediately took up the British case (where historical income data had not been exploited yet) as well as a number of other countries. Together, we edited two thick volumes that came out in 2007 and 2010, covering twenty countries in all. These works are at the origin of the database WID.world , and also of my 2014 book " Capital in the 21st century ", which could not have existed without the support of Tony.

    Leaving aside his historic and pioneering writings, Atkinson has been for decades one of the leading international specialists doing comparative investigations on the measurement of inequality and poverty in contemporary society. He has also been the tireless architect of projects for international cooperation on these subjects.

    In his most recent book published in 2015, Inequality: What Can Be Done? -wholly focused on a plan of action- he provided us with the broad outlines of a new radical reformism based on his many decades of research analyzing inequality and public policy. Witty, elegant, profound, this book brings us the finest blend of what political economy and British progressivism have to offer.

    Atkinson was a generous and rigorous scholar, a unique source of inspiration for all of us. He was also the kindest of mentors. Although he had been fighting a long illness in the last years of his life, he remained extremely active until the very end, continuing work on several big projects, and exchanging with his colleagues and friends even in recent weeks. Atkinson dies as inequality has become probably the most pressing issue our societies are facing. His life has been about creating the tools to measure, understand and tackle inequality. His work will live as we continue confronting the problem of inequality. We will miss him deeply.

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media Published on Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Published on Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Dec 19, 2017] Do not Underestimate the Power of Microfoundations Published on Apr 04, 2015 | Economist's View

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next? Published on Dec 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry Published on Jul 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [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 Published on Dec 10, 2017 | off-guardian.org

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal Published on Nov 13, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura Published on Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry Published on Nov 08, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins Published on Nov 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power Published on Oct 31, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts Published on Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    [Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins Published on Oct 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 17, 2017] The Victory of Perception Management by Robert Parry Published on Dec 28, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

    [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 Published on Oct 16, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

    [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 Published on Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 01, 2017] Neoliberal economic policies in the United States The impact of globalisation on a `Northern country by Kim Scipes Published on Oct 01, 2017 | links.org.au

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed Published on Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    [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 Published on Nov 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry Published on Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    [Sep 17, 2017] Empire Idiots by Linh Dinh Published on Sep 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow Published on Sep 05, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined Published on Aug 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson Published on Jul 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

    [Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused? Published on Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras Published on May 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military by James Petras Published on Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras Published on Jul 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras Published on Jun 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce Published on Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    [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 Published on May 23, 2017 | nakedcapitalism.com

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue Published on May 05, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    [May 01, 2017] Trump: A Resisters Guide by Wesley Yang Published on Jan 21, 2017 | harpers.org

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

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

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [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 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

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

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

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

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

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

    [Oct 17, 2017] The Victory of Perception Management by Robert Parry

    [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 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 01, 2017] Neoliberal economic policies in the United States The impact of globalisation on a `Northern country by Kim Scipes

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [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 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    [Sep 17, 2017] Empire Idiots by Linh Dinh

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

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

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

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras

    [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

    [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

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

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

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

    [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation graveyard of social protest movements, and for good reason

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

    [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

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

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

    [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.

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

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

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

    [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 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

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

    [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

    [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

    [Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks

    [Mar 23, 2018] Skripal Poisoning a Desperate British Attempt To Resurrect Their American Coup by Barbara Boyd

    [Mar 16, 2018] NATO to display common front in Skripal case

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

    [Mar 12, 2018] There is no democracy without economic democracy by Jason Hirthler

    [Feb 25, 2018] Democracies are political systems in which the real ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power

    [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.

    [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black

    [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

    [Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Dec 20, 2019] Intelligence community has become a self licking ice cream cone

    [Dec 20, 2019] The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc

    [Dec 19, 2019] Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials, often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and incipient tyranny.

    [Dec 07, 2019] Impeachment does not require a crime.

    [Dec 02, 2019] The Fake Myth of American Meritocracy by Barbara Boland

    [Nov 21, 2019] The deep state is individuals INSIDE the government that do the bidding of the banksters, the military-industrial complex, the globalists and other nefarious interests

    [Nov 07, 2019] Rigged Again Dems, Russia, The Delegitimization Of America s Democratic Process by Elizabeth Vos

    [Oct 25, 2019] Trump-Haters, Not Trump, Are The Ones Wrecking America s Institutions, WSJ s Strassel Says

    [Oct 23, 2019] The Pathocracy Of The Deep State Tyranny At The Hands Of A Psychopathic Government

    [Sep 30, 2019] Stephen Miller calls whistleblower a 'partisan hit job' in fiery interview

    [Sep 22, 2019] More Americans Questioning Official 9-11 Story As New Evidence Contradicts Official Narrative by Whitney Webb

    [Sep 17, 2019] The reincarnation of the idea of Soviet Nomenklatura on a new level in a different social system

    [Aug 21, 2019] Solomon If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed

    [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 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

    [Jul 29, 2019] The hidden control mechanism of what the late Paul A. Samuelson called our "democratic oligarchy".

    [Jul 27, 2019] Russia interfered on a massive scale ($3,684 was spends on ads on which $1932 on promoting Trump) and is doing it again as we sit here! Just how massive? They spent $100,000 on clickbait ads from a company owned by a man who was in a photo with the evil mastermind!

    [Jul 27, 2019] Understanding the Roots of the Obama Coup Against Trump by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 25, 2019] The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus On The Depraved Nature Of America s Elite

    [Jul 21, 2019] Breaking: Clinton Just Got Devastating News

    [Jul 14, 2019] MODELS OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES Political Issues We Concern

    [Jul 09, 2019] Ex-FBI, CIA Officials Draw Withering Fire on Russiagate by Ray McGovern

    [Jun 27, 2019] Western News Agencies Mistranslate Iran's President Speech - It Is Not The First Time Such 'Error' Happens

    [Jun 26, 2019] The first rule of political hypocrisy: Justify your actions by the need to protect the weak and vulnerable

    [Jun 22, 2019] Use of science by the US politicians

    [Jun 20, 2019] The difference between old and new schools of jounalism: old-school journalism was like being assigned the task of finding out what "1+1 =?" and the task was to report the answer was "1." Now the task would be to report that "Some say it is 1, some say it is 2, some say it is 3."

    [Jun 19, 2019] America s Suicide Epidemic

    [Jun 02, 2019] Somer highlights of Snowden spreach at Dalhousie University

    [May 30, 2019] Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the Earth

    [May 13, 2019] Not Just Ukraine; Biden May Have A Serious China Problem As Schweizer Exposes Hunter s $1bn Deal

    [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

    [Apr 28, 2019] Tit For Tat: Why Did Mueller Let Trump Off the Hook by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 21, 2019] Even if we got a candidate against the War Party the Party of Davos, would it matter? Trump betayal his voters, surrounded himself with neocons, continues to do Bibi's bidding, and ratcheting up tensions in Latin America, Middle East and with Russia. What's changed even with a candidate that the Swamp disliked and attempted to take down?

    [Apr 21, 2019] Muller report implicates Obama administration in total and utter incompetence, if not pandering to the foreign intervention into the USA elections. The latter is called criminal negligence in legal speak.

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

    [Apr 21, 2019] Deciphering Trumps Foreign Policy by Oscar Silva-Valladares

    [Apr 17, 2019] Haspel is not the "underling". Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [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 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump

    [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times

    [Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 02, 2019] Requiem to Russiagate by CJ Hopkins

    [Mar 29, 2019] Trumps billionaire coup détat: Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history

    [Mar 25, 2019] The Mass Psychology of Trumpism by Eli Zaretsky

    [Mar 24, 2019] The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.

    [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report

    [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.

    [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary

    [Mar 18, 2019] Journalists who are spies

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

    [Mar 18, 2019] The Why are the media playing lapdog and not watchdog – again – on war in Iraq?

    [Mar 15, 2019] Patriots Turning To #YangGang In Response To Trump, Conservatism Inc. Failure by James Kirkpatrick

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Feb 27, 2019] Their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy

    [Feb 26, 2019] Neoliberalism by Julie Wilson

    [Feb 18, 2019] Do You Believe in the Deep State Now by Robert W. Merry

    [Feb 17, 2019] Was Trump was a deep state man from day one, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the rest?

    [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill

    [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became Deep State Guardian

    [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

    [Jan 19, 2019] According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks

    [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 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.

    [Feb 23, 2020] Where Have You Gone, Smedley Butler The Last General To Criticize US Imperialism by Danny Sjursen

    [Jan 23, 2020] An incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

    [Jan 20, 2020] Fake Investigations... Designed To Fool by Bryce Buchanan

    [Jan 19, 2020] Not Just Hunter Widespread Biden Family Profiteering Exposed

    [Jan 18, 2020] The inability of the USA elite to tell the truth about the genuine aim of policy despite is connected with the fact that the real goal is to attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people such that neoliberal bankers can rule the world

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    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 © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) 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 to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    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 Softpanorama society. 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: August, 01, 2020