Softpanorama

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

Populism Bulletin, 2019

Home 2019 2018 2017 2016

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Aug 01, 2019] Tulsi Big Donor Gains--Now at 120,228>

Aug 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Tulsi Big Donor Gains--Now at 120,228

apenultimate on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:31pm Well, Tulsi for the past couple months had been averaging around 500 new unique donors per day. Early in the day before her 2nd debate performance, her campaign announced she had reached 110,000 unique donors. In 1.5 days, she gained more than 10,000 more.

During the first debate, in the week after the debate Tulsi gained 8,500 donors above her usual donor gains. Tulsi managed to do 9,500 more than average in less than 2 days this time around. This time around seems much better.

She needed a debate boost from the second debate of 8,000 donors above her typical daily donor gain to be ensured to reach the 130,000 unique donor minimum. She has already surpassed that gain.

But, the polling requirements still need to be met . . .

Tulsi is going on an annual 2-week National Guard training pretty much now. She will not be able to personally campaign during this time. That's one reason this debate was so crucial. Let's see if it can elevate her in the coming polls.

A national Economist/YouGov poll had her at 2% through July 30. That one is not qualifying, but it's a good trend.

I have *heard* (but not confirmed) that only one qualifying poll from each of the first 4 states are allowed for qualifying (but all qualifying national polls count). Tulsi has 1 qualifying poll from New Hampshire. If what I heard above is true, this means no other polls from New Hampshire count towards the debate requirements. They must be qualifying polls from Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, or national polls from here on out.

Centaurea on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:54pm
I posted this comment

on Snoopydawg's thread about Tulsi confronting Kamala, but I'd like to repost it here. I think the American people are responding not just to what Tulsi is saying, but how she is presenting herself.

Tulsi is a warrior. That's one of the main things she's accomplishing here: letting the voters see that about her.

She's directly confronting and exposing the old guard and their heirs presumptive. She's taking on the "powers that be", right to their faces, with strength and confidence.

And she's demonstrating to the American people that she is fully willing and capable of doing so.

[Aug 01, 2019] Tulsi's Last Stand? The most interesting Democrat running for president could be felled by a party that cares more about wokeness than war by W. James Antle III

Notable quotes:
"... Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify. ..."
"... represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine. ..."
"... being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

Screenshot It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates in this young election cycle. "Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?"

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa 2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding, "Whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have got to be completely engaged."

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.

Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani . Except Paul, then a relatively unknown congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national GOP frontrunner. Gabbard is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3 percent.

Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify.

The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa. Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support.

Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former secretary of housing and urban development Julian Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's making, expanding Medicare to cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes illegal immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.

Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown.

"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans -- The View brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of Congress's will on Yemen.

That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time.

Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad, she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention, failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these matters than hawks .

A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee will be a covert hawk rather than a secret right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.

W. James Antle III is the editor of .


Gyre a spencer • 3 hours ago

Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine.

But being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. And that she does not have

interguru • 2 days ago
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR .
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87 percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."

A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing

Bill In Montgomey interguru • a day ago
"Patriotism" now = "Support for military" (and for wars).
Sigh.
𝙆𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙮 𝙐𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙚 • 2 days ago
For me, a candidates stance on war will be one of the deciding factors as to their earning my vote -- So far Tulsi's position has my interest.
Vance Shogun Downing bbkingfish • a day ago
Given that this magazine was partially founded as a reaction to the Iraq War, why does an article about Tulsi Gabbard, one of the only presidential candidates who takes a mostly non-interventionist foreign policy stance, surprise you? She is a progressive, yes, and a Democrat, but her stance on war is very conservative.

You don't have to be a Republican to be conservative or to hold some conservative views.

James OGallagher bbkingfish • 20 hours ago • edited
No one with a brain ever believed that Twerp was anti interventionist. Many dopes convinced themselves of that because they wanted to believe
HerrinSchadenfreude fuow • a day ago
Warren is a corporate kiss a** and a perfect example of precisely why the person you're talking to might as well be listening to a Chipmunks song for all the ridiculous partisan deflection going on. Literally nothing of value in any of that and the implication that Dumbocraps are any different than Republicans in talking a lot and saying and doing nothing is frankly one of the insults to the intelligence that convinced me very early to reject both "sides" of this Candyland based majik partisan aisle
Brian • 2 days ago
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary
Zaphod Braden • a day ago
Tulsi is the only Democrat that could beat Trump . ...makes me wonder is this all a dog & pony show?
Tulsi is a combat vet who could shame Trump.
=marco01= Zaphod Braden • a day ago
Trump is incapable of shame
christiansmiller Zaphod Braden • a day ago
Very true. She could get enough votes from Independents, Republicans and Ron Paul Libertarians to put her over the top.
Reid Dalton • a day ago • edited
It doesn't "hurt" Tulsi's "credibility" that she met with Assad. It's been clear from the beginning of the Syrian civil war that he was the sole viable protector of Christian and other religious minorities in the region after the fall of Saddam. The U.S. should never have armed and trained the country's rebels. But it's again apparent that Democrats have no interest in saving Christians from Islamic killers.
cka2nd Reid Dalton • 15 hours ago
Have the Republicans been any better at saving Christians from Islamic killers in either Iraq or Syria (or Egypt)?
Sid Finster cka2nd • 3 hours ago
Neither Team D nor Team R cares in the slightest about Christians in the Middle East, or, for that matter, in Israel.
Sid Finster • a day ago
Team D would rather lose to Trump than reform.

This is entirely consistent with The Iron Law of Oligarchy and especially The Iron Law of Institutions.

FL_Cottonmouth Sid Finster • a day ago
To whom do the Democrats/CNN think this appeals? There are large majorities of Americans with zero emotional/ideological attachment to "free-market capitalism" who would eagerly vote for a Bernie Sanders who stuck to economic-populist issues - like me, for example - but who are repelled by cultural/social controversies over "isms" and "phobias." Seriously, "40 acres and a mule" Play Hide
Mark Thomason • a day ago
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.

I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House.

Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.

Bakka ja nai • a day ago
I will vote for her in the California primaries, even if I have to write her in as a candidate.
FL_Cottonmouth • a day ago
How fitting, because I gave up on Tulsi yesterday - before the debate - when I found out that she voted in favor of that anti-BDS resolution. Play Hide
James OGallagher FL_Cottonmouth • 20 hours ago
They all support Israel w/o condition. Unfortunately. None of them are any better than her on this issue, and they are much worse than her on most FP and military issues.
christiansmiller • a day ago
I am fully supporting Gabbard's campaign, but few people are concerned about our senseless wars. The issue does not make the top ten voter concerns in recent polls.
James OGallagher christiansmiller • 20 hours ago
Sad.
Collin Reid • a day ago
For whatever reason the President Primary debates tend to avoid most foreign policy issues. Democrats love getting the gory details of healthcare that sort prove Reagan's joke "They know too much" but there are few question on Foreign Policy. I think it reasonable to ask "What would your administration do with Venezuela?" (And Yes I like really basic Open End questions at debates.)

And yes there are good parts of Tulsi but she does need to campaign things outside of No Wars as that usually does not win Primaries.

cka2nd Collin Reid • 14 hours ago • edited
The last time it really mattered was 2008, when Hilary's support for the invasion of Iraq really came back to bite her on the butt against Obama.
Zsuzsi Kruska • a day ago
Forever wars are driven by Wash. through campaign funds coming from the war industry, foreign states and those in the USA who support other countries over their own. How could an anti-war candidate get those funds necessary for campaigning? And, as I said before, Obama and Trump both campaigned to end the wars but didn't. What makes anyone think the next president, when in office, will do anything different? Plus, one has to take into consideration the DNC's choice, and all the intrigues surrounding that process. Tulsi hasn't paid all those dues necessary for a shot at the presidency.
Alex (the one that likes Ike) Steve Naidamast • a day ago • edited
Some people were as stupid as to think that Trump would lose by a landslide in 2016. Some people were as stupid as to think that Candidate Five-Year-Old-Girl-in-a-Grown-Up-Woman's-Body, who managed to hijack (or, rather, joyride) Obama's foreign policy and to start two (or, rather, three, given that Yemen is also her legacy) foreign wars yet, knowing about the "nice" legacy of Afghanistan and Iraq, would be any appealing. So I wonder how anyone with both hemispheres functional can believe that discarding Gabbard and Sanders, while picking any of the political reincarnations of the ingnorant, arrogant and, first of all, almost childishly self-righteous moron who managed to wreck the country's entire foreign policy without even being the president can win against the man who cleaned up that child's (despite her physically being his age-mate) mess in Syria and, judging by what the Italian press says, is letting others to clean an even greater mess of hers in Libya.
JPH • a day ago
Looks that on foreign policy Tulsi is the only sane option.
That's exactly why the bipartisan establishment, the corrupt corporate media and the MIC hate her vehemently.
Eric • a day ago
I am a registered Republican so I can't vote for Tulsi in the MD primaries, but I will consider donating to her campaign to help her get into the third debate.

I can forgive a Democrat for supporting universal healthcare so long as they
don't buy into the identity politics garbage.

Although I'm fairly conservative, I will take a Democrat with character over who we have in the White House today.

Hellprin_fan Eric • 20 hours ago
It's not like you have a choice in a Republican primary; why not change your registration to Democratic for the presidential primary?
christiansmiller Eric • 19 hours ago
I have never voted for a Democrat in my very long life, but I am a donating heavily to Tulsi because of her stand on foreign policy
blimbax Eric • 3 hours ago
Eric, you can change your registration for long enough to vote for someone you obviously think is worth voting for.

I was a registered Democrat for all of my voting life, although I often voted for Republicans. As a result of Bush Jr.'s war against Iraq, I swore never to vote for a Republican again.

But when Ron Paul was on the ballot in the Republican primary, I re-registered, as a Republican, just so I could vote for him. (In California, the party determines whether its primary is open or closed.) After 6 weeks, following the primary, I re-registered again, this time as a no-party-preference voter.

It's not that I liked everything Ron Paul believed in (but I did like the fact that he was genuine and truthful). But I agreed with him on the really important issues involving foreign policy.

So you have options, Eric. It won't soil you to change party registration temporarily if it allows you to vote for someone you might vote for in the general election. In fact, you might feel good about it. I know I did. Voting for Ron Paul was the first time in a long time that I felt good about my vote. And this time, I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard in the primary even if I have to write her name in.

Salt Lick • 19 hours ago
Tulsi is not running for President. She's running for running mate for either Bernie or Warren. Both need her foreign policy chops and military cred.
She will bring voters to the ticket, unlike most V.P. picks.

Given Bernie age, should he pick her, she could end up President after all.
Works for me.

cka2nd • 14 hours ago
The Democratic Party uber alles types over at Daily Kos are supporting Gabbard's primary challenger for her Congressional seat, attacking her for her previous stands on abortion and same sex marriage, and really laying into her for playing footsies with a dictator like Assad. And while Bernie has some support over there, especially among the readers who take their polls, there are others who still won't forgive him for not actually joining the Dems officially (and who buy all of the "he cost Clinton the election" stupidity).
Alex (the one that likes Ike) cka2nd • 3 hours ago
The most tragic thing is not that they simply buy that stupidity. It is that they still buy it. After almost three years. Bernie didn't cost Clinton the election. Clinton cost Democrats the election. Much like any of her political reincarnations they are about to pick will.
Jonathan Dillard Lester • 14 hours ago
I thought she did just fine in the debate tonight, and there is the matter of her lawsuit against Google, so I wouldn't count her out just yet.
CJL_1976 • 9 hours ago
As a non-interventionist lefty, why am I aligned with paleoconservatives on so many issues?

[Aug 01, 2019] Liberal Media Is Freaking Out Over Gabbard's Destruction Of Harris by Caitlin Johnstone

Notable quotes:
"... Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." ..."
"... That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform . ..."
"... It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time. ..."
"... "Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali. ..."
"... All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now. ..."
"... War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects. ..."
"... The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable. ..."
Aug 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via CaitlinJohnstone.com,

In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute event.

That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib , approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward the Mueller report and impeachment proceedings.

Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with a whole eleven minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet. This discrepancy could very well be due to the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves around the platform of ending US warmongering. CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm with an extensive history of promoting lies and brazen psyops in facilitation of US imperialism , so it would make sense that they would try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the matter.

But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii congresswoman from getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway.

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

Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way."

Harris, who it turns out fights very well when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard's attack, preferring to focus on attacking Joe Biden instead . Later, when she was a nice safe distance out of Gabbard's earshot, she uncorked a long-debunked but still effective smear which establishment narrative managers have been dying for an excuse to run wild with.

"This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches," Harris told Anderson Cooper after the debate.

"She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I'm prepared to move on."

That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform .

"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey.

It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time.

The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and that she "helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity", and falsely claiming that " she praised Russian bombing of Syrian civilians ".

In reality all Gabbard did was meet with Assad to discuss the possibility of peace, and, more importantly, she said the US shouldn't be involved in regime change interventionism in Syria. This latter bit of business is the real reason professional war propagandists like Rogin are targeting her; not because they honestly believe that a longtime US service member and sitting House Representative is an "Assad apologist", but because she commits the unforgivable heresy of resisting the mechanics of America's forever war .

MSNBC's Joy Reid gleefully leapt into the smearing frenzy, falsely claiming that "Gabbard will not criticize Assad, no matter what." Gabbard has publicly and unequivocally both decried Assad as a "brutal dictator" and claimed he's guilty of war crimes, much to the irritation of anti-imperialists like myself who hold a far more skeptical eye to the war propaganda narratives about what's going on in Syria. At no time has Gabbard ever claimed that Assad is a nice person or that he isn't a brutal leader; all she's done is say the US shouldn't get involved in another regime change war there because US regime change interventionism is consistently and predictably disastrous. That's not being an "Assad apologist", that's having basic common sense.

"Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali.

All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now.

War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects.

The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable.

Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control is doing the real work.

* * *

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


John Law Lives , 4 minutes ago link

"It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time." - C.J.

I think we see evidence of this sort of thing all the time. "Russian collusion" was thrust upon MSM consumers in coordinated fashion for many months. Now that it has largely fizzled out, "racism" has taken its place. "Racism". "Racism". "Racism". It seems as if MSM drones plug into the Mothership to get their talking points. This sort of behavior was featured in the 1939 film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", when the Establishment decided Mr. Smith needed to be crushed.

Harris's deflection of Gabbard's attacks are right in line with the Establishment's treatment of people who don't tow the line. Harris is trying to dismiss Gabbard as if her opinion has no weight. Harris is probably wishing hard that Gabbard won't make the next round of debates.

throw the bum out , 10 minutes ago link

Horrible Harris got her *** handed to her by Tulsi.

I would love to see someone say to Kamala, "your panties came down for Willie Brown"...that's how you got your first break.

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/ltg-uploads/2018/02/KamalaHarrisWillieBrownPatronageJob.png

vienna_proxy , 18 minutes ago link

if Tulsi is nominee, i'll vote for her and vote republican for house/senate etc. her anti-war policy is what i was hoping Trump would do. in reality if the republicans hold a chamber in congress then any anti-gun and healthcare bills won't get through. but on day one Tulsi can start removing our troops from Ukraine, Syria, Afghan, Iraq, Saudi, Turkey, and wherever the hell else they are

Terminaldude , 19 minutes ago link

Tulsi Gabbard is the real thing. She has seen the results of WAR and the pain that comes with it through lost limbs, PTSD, etc..

The rest of them are shills for the MIC as well as NWO... .I wonder how many of them know a certain J. Epstein?

Ignorance is bliss , 16 minutes ago link

Tulsi Gabbard is no cankles. She is a veteran, she's female, and she has some good policies. Buyer beware her site mentions nothing about gun control. Liberals always make me nervous.

As president I'll end the failed war on drugs, legalize marijuana, end cash bail, and ban private prisons and bring about real criminal justice reform. ( link )

Everyone talks a big game..but Trump's actually delivered on a few good policies. Example he ended Trans-Pacific partnership. He is renegotiating bad deals with NAFTA and China. He's able to take the heat form the deep state and criminals all around him. He's kept the stock market up. I suspect the stock market is the tide lifting all boats. So far Trump's been pretty good.

But Gabbard has a lot of appeal.

Someone Else , 17 minutes ago link

The only thing I have against Tulsi Gabbard is that she recently voted for the ridiculous Democrat sponsored Defense budget that was even more than the Pentagon requested.

Till then I supported her 100%.

Now, more like 90%.

eleventwelve , 23 minutes ago link

Tulsi Gabbard should be the Democratic Nominee. I support Trump, voted for him, but he is too distracted, too much of an overactive schmoe. He made all of these promises and yes the attacks have been relentless, but nothing is being accomplished. Trump has deep state clowns all around him including Bolton and Pompeo. The deficit is going through the roof, the artificial, superficial manipulated stock market is going to eventually hurt a lot of people.

I don't agree with many of her policies but Tulsi Gabbard is a sane and a thoughtful thinker. She will think before reacting. Her Ron Paul approach to our overreach in the world is absolutely appropriate. Think about this, we spend $850 Billion Dollars on defense so we can feed the war industry. That is more than all the countries of the world combined literally!!! If we brought all the troops home, closed up most bases outside the US, and protected our borders, our deficit would plummet, we could rebuild the infrastructure, we could figure out the health care B.S. We would get along with the rest of the world instead of being looked at as an enemy.

Everybody is coming out of the woodwork because she knows, like most, that Assad did not pepper spray his own people. Cripes, when does this insanity end?

Publicus_Reanimated , 2 minutes ago link

Drawing down the US military to the point you describe will put 1 million American men and women between the ages of 18 and 40 out of work. Do you not realize in addition to feeding the MIC the military is one giant jobs program? Those young men and women, the vast majority of whom do not want to learn to code, would find themselves competing against foreigners and teenagers for $15 minimum wage jobs.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world would openly laugh at us and secretly plot how to take advantage of the power vacuum. Evil does not rest when unopposed, it becomes stronger.

When half the world's population (= all Chinese plus all Muslims) wants to destroy your country, "insanity" is defined as beating your swords into ploughshares.

giovanni_f , 25 minutes ago link

The enemies of Tulsi Gabbard are not the Zionazis who helped Trump win the elections or MAGA hat wearing hillbillies who have no clue whats the difference between Hong Kong and King Kong. It is the liberals who voted for Hillary and went berserk after their beloved mafia bitch lost who hate Tulsi Gabbard. Because she makes them look like what they are, i.e. scum. Sure, conservatives will never vote for a intelligent woman. But they are not the problem.

kudocast , 21 minutes ago link

"Liberals who voted for Hillary" is a false premise. The Democratic National Committee forced Hillary Clinton on liberals, they fixed the primaries so she would win. Liberals and progressives wanted Bernie Sanders who would have kicked Trump's ***.

[Aug 01, 2019] A suggested explanation off Tulsi's strategy: Why go after Biden? He's already imploding; she would only look cruel, beating up on a senile old man

Notable quotes:
"... On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone else. ..."
"... @doh1304 ..."
"... Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet. It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard about any of these issues. ..."
"... Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala. ..."
"... @k9disc ..."
Aug 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Why go after Biden? He's already imploding; she would only look cruel, beating up on a senile old man for her own aggrandizement. Harris, OTOH, is a clear enemy, perpetrator of obvious crimes. Exposing her could only make her look like a paladin.

On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone else.

Harris is sort of right, it is a strategy only used by someone trying to come from behind, but that's because people with Tulsi's integrity are not allowed to start at the "Top-tier". up 14 users have voted. --

A PROUD Hillary hater since 1993

gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 3:29pm

One thing is for certain

@doh1304
Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet. It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard about any of these issues.

Battle of Blair... on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 6:31pm
Joe is so far down in the

Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala.

Don't be surprised if she goes after Pocahontas in the next debates.

k9disc on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:58pm
I Saw the Set Up for Warren as Shepherd. Delaney's "Can't Do"

attitude certainly was smacked down in righteous fashion. Hollywood level righteous.

Having those extras on stage feature so prominently in the debates certainly was interesting.

snoopydawg on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 8:33pm
I'm seeing the same thing

@k9disc

The crisis actors are just there to say what the democrats can't do or to derail anyone who thinks they are going to change the system. Delaney, Bullock, DeBlasio and everyone else who doesn't stand a chance have all been negative on Warren and Bernie pushing their MFA. Did Delaney set himself up for Warren to smack him down? The silly ass smile on his face made me think that. Then he was all over Twitter the next day saying how good he did in the debate. And after 24 hours he finally had a comeback to Warren's response.

The other reason for so many candidates of course is to split the votes during the first part so that the super delegates can come in and play.

attitude certainly was smacked down in righteous fashion. Hollywood level righteous.

Having those extras on stage feature so prominently in the debates certainly was interesting.

#7

[Aug 01, 2019] Harris's spokesman explains Tulsi's takedown of Kamala It was Russia! caucus99percent

Aug 01, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Harris's spokesman explains Tulsi's takedown of Kamala: It was Russia!

gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 11:47am Snoopydawg has got the takedown covered , so I won't duplicate it.
Instead I'd like to show you how TOP has gone into a full-throated whine party over it.

On Wednesday night, that meant that Gabbard got to go after Kamala Harris on her actions as attorney general, using loaded phrases and selected statements to paint Harris as someone who was ready to throw pot-smokers behind bars for eternity and personally throw the execution switch for death row inmates after hiding evidence of their innocence.

There's no doubt that Harris will face more kicks about her AG role during this campaign, and she certainly expected to receive some blows. But Gabbard knew she could square off with Harris in the certainty that no one, but no one, came into the Wednesday night debate thinking, "I need to prepare some talking points against Tulsi Gabbard." And even if she had, CNN gave Harris little time to muster her thoughts before calling in more witnesses to bolster Gabbard's attacks.

It wasn't just the tools on GOS that Tulsi knocked off balance, it was Harris herself . Even CNN noticed.

Worse than that -- for Harris -- is the fact that it became crystal clear in the aftermath of the debate that Gabbard had gotten under her skin. In a post-debate interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked Harris about the moment with Gabbard.
"This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight," Harris said. "When people are at 0 or 1% or whatever she might be at, so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Woof.
First of all, if you are running for president and you hear the words, "This is going to sound immodest" come out of your mouth, it may be best to recalibrate what you are going to say.
Second, what Harris is actually saying is, basically, this: The dork took a shot at the most popular kid in school. Big whoop.
That is not a good look. For any candidate. Ever. (And, yes, politics is a LOT like high school.)

That's gonna leave a mark.
But never fear, because there is a reason for Harris getting taken down by Gabbard - Russia .

The #KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag had disappeared from the list of trending U.S. terms by 9:30 a.m. Thursday.

Harris's spokesman, Ian Sams, responded to the hashtag, noting that at least some of the accounts promoting it appeared to be bots.

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat," he said.

Reporters writing their stories with eyes on the modern-day assignment desk of Twitter, read this:

"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat" https://t.co/2kpKQqW3Ir

-- Ian Sams (@IanSams) August 1, 2019

Damn! Putin was on the debate stage and no one noticed?
That has got to be the weakest response in recent history.

Here's the thing, the Harris campaign is already guilty of crying wolf over Russia.

Harris has already been caught misrepresenting alleged Russian propaganda activity. She claimed in a radio interview on July 12 that she had been subjected to Russian bot attacks on social media sites like Twitter.

But CNN debunked the claim days later, reporting that Twitter saw no evidence that Russian bots were targeting Harris.

[Aug 01, 2019] I could live with Gabbard replacing Bolton or Pompeo in a second Trump administration

Aug 01, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

spyware-free , 13 minutes ago link

I could live with Gabbard replacing Bolton or Pompeo in a second Trump administration.

AKKadian , 12 minutes ago link

You never Know, right!

Someone Else , 9 minutes ago link

A cancerous tumor would be preferable to Bolton or Pompeo, but then I repeat myself.

[Aug 01, 2019] Elizabeth Warren could hit the mark as the candidate best placed to beat Trump.

Aug 01, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

Katherine1984 , 31 Jul 2019 13:44

Like it or not, beating Donald Trump is no easy task.

A candidate too far to the left and they just won't get sufficient support from an electorate which inclines to the right (by UK standards).

Too establishment and "entitled" and some will hesitate to give them even a get-Trump-out vote.

Elizabeth Warren could hit the mark as the candidate best placed to beat Trump.

But she will have to brace herself for him to play a very nasty campaign against her.

MohammedS , 31 Jul 2019 13:24
Who gives a monkeys? The real issue is that the selfish, disorientated and cowardly way the Dems are conducting this race is handing Trump a winning platform for 2020.
After long hard thinking I have come to the sad conclusion that Trump is right and that he is indeed a genius. He has achieved what he had set out to do. He has polarised the standard bearer for democracy in the world. He has enriched himself and his family. He has broken American society, possibly irreversibly. He has brought about change in the worlds economies. He has also managed to set the debate and the stage to win in 2020. Now some may say he has been an awful president, but looking at his strategy he has been highly successful. He may not be what we want but he has certainly been better at feeling the pulse of America and deciding which medicine to give. A truly evil genius indeed.
TheMediaSux , 31 Jul 2019 13:15
Sanders and Warren are the only two with some kind of personality. The others look like they were created by lobbyists and corporate donors in a lab on a computer like Kelly Lebrock from Weird Science.
TremoluxMan , 31 Jul 2019 13:08
The point about taxes going up is a red herring and a straw man argument. If you get insurance through your employer, you pay anywhere from $300/month to $1200/month for yourself and family. Through a Medicare for all plan, that payment would disappear. Yes, you'd pay more in taxes to cover your health insurance, but it would likely be lower than private insurance, a net gain, with better coverage, no deductible or co-pays. Even if it was the same, it's still a wash. You're eliminating an expense for a tax. Plus, you're not paying for some executive's perks and exorbitant salary.

Personally, I'd feel better paying $50,000-$75,000/year to a government administrator than $10M-$20M/year + perks to a CEO.

ColoradoJack -> Andy Womack , 31 Jul 2019 12:10
Obama was simply being honest there. By any standard, Obama, both Clinton's, Gore (except for climate change) and Biden are at best moderate Republicans. Each would qualify as being to the right of Richard Nixon (leaving aside the issue of integrity).
In the case of Bill Clinton, Americans had not got woken to the fact that, while a little less by Democrats, the middle class was nontheless being screwed by both parties. Obama's rhetoric was enough cover to fool the public into thinking he would fight for real change. Both Gore and especially Hillary showed what the public now thinks of "moderates". Bernie Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren are the only chances to beat Trump in 2020.
Eisenhower , 31 Jul 2019 11:13
Reparations for slavery, the elimination of private insurance, free health care for anyone who overstays a visa or walks over from Mexico, and a crystal lady.

We are in trouble. My nightmare of a Trump re-election is more and more likely.

MoonlightTiger -> BaronVonAmericano , 31 Jul 2019 11:13
I believe it is. Ha
BaronVonAmericano -> thepianist , 31 Jul 2019 11:11
The general election poses an obvious vote against Trump.

Virtually 100% of the decision-making you have about what future we might want is in the primary.

Staying out of the primary debates is tantamount to abandoning all political power.

BaronVonAmericano , 31 Jul 2019 11:05
Warren and Sanders clearly demonstrated that a party wanting to win should nominate one of them.

They enthralled the audience, and showed they possess a vision for the future that every other Democratic candidate claims to eventually want, when there's time, maybe, perhaps if they get a majority someday.

Cmank1 , 31 Jul 2019 10:54
Clearly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were the clear winners of the night! They shamed the listless other candidates, none of whom exhibited a similar energy, excitement & vision for the future of the country. Despite a definite veneer of displeasure by your account, both the audience at the event, and those watching at home felt the excitement of progressive proposals won the day.
KMdude , 31 Jul 2019 10:46
The winner of the debate was Trump.

When Sanders declared he's in favor of free healthcare and free education for illegal immigrants there was -at best - muted criticism from the other candidates.

Most Americans are likely outraged by this suggestion and this will play in Trump's favor.

DontFanMeBro , 31 Jul 2019 10:39
It's obvious that John Delaney is simply a plant by Big Business (which has both the centrist Democrats and all of Republicans in its pocket) to troll and derail the candidacy of progressives Sanders and Warren. His sole function is to throw a monkey wrench in their path and be a "nattering nabob of negativism" (to quote Agnew) regarding their policies. That's all he does all day and all night, and the centrist-loving moderators and journalists love giving him infinite time to do his damage
Haigin88 , 31 Jul 2019 04:42
The answer is obvious: if you want your best shot at 86-ing the orange pestilence, then it has to be Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren. You're not supposed to signal your vice-president until after you've got the nomination, I know, but surely having Trump as president has shredded all previous norms? Go now, right now, and say that it'll be you two. You can even keep it open and say that you don't know who'll head the ticket but it will be Warren and Sanders. That would crush all opposition and keep churning interesting as a guessing game.

Maybe Warren should head the ticket. I know that Sanders is very sharp and he plays basketball but if he was president then he'd be asking for a second term and to get sworn in when he's 83 and being in one's eighties might be too much of a psychological barrier. My suggestion, though, would be it's Sanders/Warren but on the promise that Sanders will step aside during his first term, after two years and one day (meaning that Warren could serve out the rest of the term and still then run for two more terms under her own steam).

That would guarantee the first female president and so quieten down the phoney-baloney identity politics drones; better, it would mean that the US would get an excellent leader in Elizabeth Warren, no matter her bodily organs; it would pull together the Crooked H. adherents and get them on side, if they truly care about getting female in there and if it doesn't it will expose them as the phonies they are. And it would keep matters on policy, when Trump is weak, rather than personalities, which is the territory on which Trump wants to fight.

[Jul 31, 2019] ET TU, TULSI???

The far left wants too much form Tulsi. You can't fight on two fronts when attacking the the neocon foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following, between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Jul 29 2019 17:07 utc | 34

ET TU, TULSI???

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51998.htm

I should always trust my instincts. Attending an event hosted by the Adelsons was disturbing enough, but I trusted people here instead and brushed off my suspicions.

She's finished!

paul , Jul 29 2019 19:17 utc | 38

Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following, between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days.

Gabbard has now broken a lot of hopes. She has jumped the shark spectacularly, shamelessly craving the support of the 'Israel Lobby'. Her claims to be against the regime change wars when these wars are relentlessly pushed by the Israel Lobby she is now shamelessly courting?!!!

I suppose we can hope that Tulsi takes a flying leap back over the shark, say by visiting Gaza the way she recently visited Puerto Rico. If she doesn't now make a huge point of it, in words and actions, that she will NOT be yet another tool of the Israel Lobby, the neocons, the neolibs, etc., then she must be opposed as the turncoat shill she now seems to be.

Jason , Jul 29 2019 21:51 utc | 42
No use wasting breath on Gabbard. Trump vs. Biden in 2020 with Trump taking the Midwest and the electoral college like 2016 is unavoidable. If undermining Gabbard is your deal, I'd wait until 2024.
Jackrabbit , Jul 29 2019 21:54 utc | 43
Circe, Paul, Nottheonly1, and everyone

I took a lot of flak when I pointed out the simple truth that Gabbard is not against war and not against US/NATO imperialism but simply against "regime change wars" that USA failed to win.

Trump was also against dumb wars and his imperialist detractors called him an isolationist - but that was merely a neat way to burnish his populist credentials. Trump has acted much like his imperialist predecessors who hedge their peace talk with exceptionalist morality that requires utmost strength in a "dangerous world". And these faux democratic leaders are all-too-willing to lead the propaganda effort when called upon to support Deep State objectives.

Democracy Works! (no, not for YOU)

It's for the children! (no, not YOUR children)

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

OutOfThinAir , Jul 29 2019 22:40 utc | 45
Gabbard reminds me that the leaders of every nation should be watching re-runs of Mister Roger's Neighborhood and apply its lessons to the abstract and Alpha-male dominated world of international relations.

I'm only half-joking. In a world of technological parity, real-time communication, and rapid travel the importance of being a good neighbor has never been more important. At the minimum, that means doing no harm and, at the max, doing nice things with no expectations.

Alas, we're stuck with countries building walls, using prosperity as a weapon, and thinking that power never waxes and wanes. Shame that human wisdom hasn't kept up with material progress.

Pft , Jul 29 2019 22:47 utc | 46
I had an uneasy interest/hope in/for Gabbard. No more after she sold herself to Israeli interests.

Lets face it, nobody worth his/her salt can get close to the Presidency without being backed by one or more factions of the elite. The unrepresented bottom 90% (non military/vet) simply has no representation, and more than half are too stupid to know it.

Change for the better will never happen under the present system. The US and the world will continue falling into the abyss. One day soon the people find out what that means. Thats when the gloves come off. Nowhere to hide then. Serve your masters well or be disappeared.

Jackrabbit , Jul 29 2019 23:38 utc | 47
Jason @42 is right. Gabbard was never going to make it anyway. She's there because fake democratic choice is the establishment's way of cementing their control.

As in:

=

Democracy Works! (no, not for YOU)

It's for the children! (no, not YOUR children)

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

SteveK9 , Jul 30 2019 13:33 utc | 84
Gabbard: One can either give up participating (definitely an option) or look for the best alternative to doing nothing. As pointed out by others there is a power structure in America, which cannot be opposed in totality.

On the other hand, politicians are famous for not keeping their promises. There is the possibility of not keeping promises to Adelson as well. One person can only do so much, even the President. So, we have to keep supporting alternatives, if there is any chance at all to change direction. Outside forces are definitely going to help here ... Russia and China are busy building a new 'World Order' which will be very good for America, when we finally give up the Empire.

Environmental fanatics: The two essential factors in preserving Earth's ecosystem are: 1) limit to human population ... I believe this is happening and human population will reach a peak and begin to decline I think best estimates are ~ 2050 at 10 billion, 2) widespread, near total replacement of fossil energy use by nuclear power, which can easily be made to have virtually zero environmental impact, while allowing a high standard of living for Earth's entire population.

[Jul 31, 2019] Gabbard says she will end these endless regime-change wars and use the "trillions of dollars we have been wasting on these wars and these weapons" on domestic spending.

Jul 31, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com

Jodi Schneider Senior International Editor Gabbard says she will " end these endless regime-change wars " and use the "trillions of dollars we have been wasting on these wars and these weapons" on domestic spending.

Gabbard
Photographer: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

[Jul 31, 2019] Lambert Strether

Jul 31, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

July 30, 2019 at 9:59 pm

Sanders: "Elizabeth is exactly right." On trade.

Adding, Warren keeps saying "suck profits out." Vivid!

Reply

DonCoyote , July 30, 2019 at 10:03 pm

"You're gonna hear a giant sucking sound ". Yup, Ross, we heard it

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:05 pm

Guardian editorializing in the photo at the top of their live blog . Accurately, I would say.

Of course, it's "just business." Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:45 pm

Warren: "We beat it by being the party of big structural change." The issue is whether "regulation" is big enough and structural enough.

Sanders: "To stand with the working class* of American that for the last 45 years has been decimated." Then the Canada bus trip. "We need a mass political movement. Take on the greed and the corruption of the ruling class of this country." Plugs website.

Sanders was better; working the bus trip in was good.

NOTE * Guardian paraphrase : "Bernie Sanders pledged to stand by the US middle class , recounting his recent trip to Canada to emphasize the high price of insulin in America." Lol.

WheresOurTeddy , July 31, 2019 at 4:24 am

The allergy to the phrase "working class" is not accidental. They want as many Americans as possible thinking they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

As someone who has spent most of my life in the working class, made it to the middle, got knocked down again, and made my way back up to the middle again, there is most certainly a difference.

Jessica , July 31, 2019 at 4:49 am

When was the last time (if ever) that someone said the words "ruling class" in a presidential debate? (I assume that Eugene Debs was never invited to any presidential debate.)
Even that Bernie said "working class" won points with me. Typical of the Guardian to change it to "middle class".
Williamson was impressive.
I liked that Warren showed fire and guts. Her policies would be a real change for the better, especially if pushed farther. My real question about her is whether she would stand up to the other side and fight to win.
For me, the biggest difference between Bernie and Warren is that I am starting to hope that Warren would really fight, but I know Bernie would.

Spring Texan , July 31, 2019 at 10:37 am

I like Bernie better, but I like Warren too, and I *DO* trust her to fight.

The big tell was when she went to Washington as a Senator and Larry Summers said don't criticize us in public if you want to be part of the club, and she not only ignored that but told on him publicly!

Two actually GOOD people! They were my dream team last night.

nippersmom , July 30, 2019 at 10:46 pm

Warren paraphrased Sanders stump speech.

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:50 pm

In academic terms, yes.

Watching Warren's reactions was really interesting. I think the sheer stupidity of centrist arguments really ticks her off, which speaks well of her.

scarn , July 30, 2019 at 11:07 pm

I agree. I'm highly skeptical of Warren delivering anything (especially a victory), and I don't really trust her to try very hard to implement her plans. Watching her in this debate opened a thin crack in my icy wall of distrust. I hope she proves me wrong.

skippy , July 31, 2019 at 4:28 am

Eh . Warren for all her sociopolitical baggage is a completely different animal to the Blue Dog Corporatist DNC fundie or the Free Market Conservative slash Goat picked me to administrate reality for everyone dilemma.

But yeah feel [tm] free [tm] to play curricular firing squad and then wonder why ones head is sore from the effects of banging on an sacrilegious edifice .

Lambert Strether Post author , July 30, 2019 at 10:47 pm

And now the spin doctors!

I think a photo finish by Sanders and Warren, Buttigieg in the running followed by Klobuchar, Beto fading, the centrists losing big, Williamson a dark horse coming up on the outside.

[Jul 31, 2019] Democratic Debate Warren and Sanders Stand Pat, but Look Out for Marianne by
Jim Geraghty

By one key metric -- Google interest -- Marianne Willamson was the dominant figure of the debate. and that's tells a lot about debate aorgnizers which are not interested in real political debase. Just interested in the debate as a political show. They are too interested in promoted identity politics to devide the electorate, to allow discussion of really important for the nation question such as rampant militarism.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for." ..."
"... Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party, judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of government policy to solve problems in society. ..."
"... One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.nationalreview.com

A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for."

Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party, judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of government policy to solve problems in society.

One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype.

Advertisement

Warren shamelessly insisted that the government could pay for quality health care for every American -- and illegal immigrants, too! -- just by raising taxes on billionaires and big corporations. Warren made clear tonight that she's not going to let a little thing like fiscal reality get in between her and the nomination.

... ... ...

Tonight was another night where you could easily forget Amy Klobuchar was on stage. Back when Klobuchar's campaign was in the nascent stage, people wondered how "Minnesota nice" would play on a national debate stage. We can now declare it boring, predictable, and forgettable.

[Jul 31, 2019] Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount

Jul 31, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

Reply Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 04:08 AM


RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to anne... , July 16, 2019 at 04:31 AM

"...Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount."

[Awesome! Thanks.]

ilsm -> RC (Ron) Weakley... , July 16, 2019 at 06:38 AM
why the Pelosi is playing the racist card.... there will be none of it (remedies) from the democrats
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to ilsm... , July 16, 2019 at 07:24 AM
"why the Pelosi is playing the racist card.... there will be none of it (remedies) from the democrats"

[Not quite half right. There will be no remedies from either Democrats nor Republicans. Racism has been in the cards from the beginning. They played those cards with 3/5ths of a man to begin with but after that it was still the de facto corner for a lot of the triangulation, although unions gave the descendants of slaves a run for their money for a while. But now unions are effectively a dead end corner of the deck while racism still burns on into the future. Last time to get a New Deal it took a Great Depression, but now the two party shuffle is cautious enough to maintain the status quo without inciting substantive rebellion. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors.]

RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to RC (Ron) Weakley... , July 16, 2019 at 07:52 AM
Political triangulation of the electorate would be impossible if they were all the same. The purpose of political triangulation of the electorate into effectively equal parts is to ensure a high probability of reelection in combination with a low requirement for socially responsible policy. Divide and conquer works. Elites get everything that they really need and there is always someone else to blame. Perfect!
ilsm -> RC (Ron) Weakley... , July 16, 2019 at 08:25 AM
"political triangulation"... as if. I suspect you give the parties too much credit, whether logic or moral.

Propagandized electorate a bi-partisan effort is my 'take'.

RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to ilsm... , July 16, 2019 at 08:44 AM
That is a distinction without difference. Just think in terms of driving between the coneheads and choosing to veer to either the left or right to knock down the number of coneheads that you will need.

The electorate comes with perforated seams from the factory. It is just a matter of choosing where to tear them apart. The important thing though for elites is to never let anyone tape across those perforated seams and hold the electorate together.

In the immoral words of King Lear "Your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all -- / O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; / No more of that"

kurt -> RC (Ron) Weakley... , July 16, 2019 at 10:10 AM
The worst thing that Clinton (Bill) ever did was to embrace southern racists the way he did with his "tough on crime" and "welfare reform." Those ideas were coded white baby boomer racism put into policy.
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to kurt... , July 16, 2019 at 10:35 AM
They were certainly among the worst, but I would have to set the Wayback Machine and travel back with Doctor Peabody to do a bit of research to explicitly agree. Particularly, evaluating the consequences of trade status (e.g., WTO and PNTR China) and trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA) are nontrivial exercises. Remember that such status and agreements would not lead to arbitrage pricing and trade imbalances all else being equal. So, we know that all else was not equal.

I know as much as I do about politics and civil rights in the 60's as I do because I was an insider, an embedded observer and to a minor extent an active participant at the ground level. Trade negotiations and institutions are way outside my home turf. I can read about it from the available source material and substantiate or nullify by digging through sources to get to the truth, but that kind of research takes big hours (from a few dozen to a few hundred to cover all the bases reasonably well) and no one is paying me to do it. So, I can have no opinion of my own and I have tired of just transferring received wisdom. Paine is the only commenter on this blog that I know of that has any substantial understanding of the trade issues, but you might be better off to just stick with Dean Baker and Dan Rodrik if you want to understand what you are reading. They write in English, rather than in Paine.

kurt -> RC (Ron) Weakley... , July 16, 2019 at 11:27 AM
Dani and Dean are great, but I still think that all of the issues with trade are pretty easily solved with a top tax rate that limits oligarchs income, capital controls to prevent the flight of capital to other places, environmental arbitrage penalties, and a big helping of helping the third world raise living standards, efficiency and allowing them to become trading partners rather than trade based vassal states. Also, I don't think that trade adequately explains the weakness of unions or loss of manufacturing jobs. Right to work, voter suppression, automation and the white working class going full racist and voting for their own demise are better explainers.
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to kurt... , July 16, 2019 at 12:27 PM
On trade, then if a frog had wings...

On politics and race, there is a lot feeding into it; economics, policy blindness of pseudo-intellectual elites, private corporate news conglomerates, small white dicks, the list goes on. Don't underestimate the demoralizing effect that the consolidation of corporations has had both as an enabler of low wages, offshoring, union busting, pension insecurity, and general antisocial behavior AND as a big brother for big brother running public policy and the media as wholly owned subsidiaries.

kurt -> RC (Ron) Weakley... , July 16, 2019 at 12:43 PM
Fair enough - and I should have (and always should) include enforcing the anti-trust laws against US and offshore based companies. Consolidation also is a bigger culprit than trade agreements. Failure to enforce anti-trust measures for going on 50 years is a bigger culprit.
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to kurt... , July 16, 2019 at 01:00 PM
Yeah, we are getting close now.

Enforcing anti-trust is a little like busing, a day late and a dollar short. There were tax incentives before 1954 that prevented most mergers, but still allowed fire sale acquisitions (where there are more capital losses than capital gains so no or few taxes) without any adverse consequences. Accomplishing mergers depends upon the attractiveness of capital gains windfall tax incentives when compared to dividends income potential over time.

The equity owner tax incentive tables were turned in 1954 towards consolidating US corporations into giant conglomerates to better compete with the state sponsored monopolies of Japan. That was under Ike and Republican controlled Congress, but when the Democrats got back in power then they just let it ride falsely justifying it as a tax increase on the wealthy.

JohnH -> kurt... , July 16, 2019 at 01:38 PM
LOL!!! kurt still hasn't figured out that the essence of 'free' trade was the free flow of capital. This form of 'free' trade would die a sudden and ignominious death if capital controls were put in place to prevent the flight of capital to other places.

'Free' trade never really was about the free flow of goods, but about the ability of banksters and corporations to make secure investments abroad. Only if and when their investments are protected do investors feel comfortable shipping American jobs overseas to exploit foreign labor.

Of course, this was not something that Krugman and the 'free' trade zealots wanted to publicize. Instead they focused on how good 'free' trade would be for America (implying Americans but really meaning the investor class.) And they chose to lie about how good 'free' trade would be for labor.

kurt -> JohnH... , July 16, 2019 at 03:33 PM
Every post I have made saying "it ain't all trade" has included a call for capital controls. Your statement here is belied by the fact that I keep asking for what you want.
JohnH -> kurt... , July 16, 2019 at 03:33 PM
Kurt missed my point: the current 'free' trade regime cannot co-exist with capital controls. Free trade deals were designed largely to eliminate them.

So what does Kurt support ... 'free' trade or capital controls?

[Jul 31, 2019] A popular front is a broad coalition of different political groupings, usually made up of leftists and centrists.

Jul 31, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne -> Paine... , July 17, 2019 at 07:13 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front

A popular front is a broad coalition of different political groupings, usually made up of leftists and centrists.

[ I assume the expression "popular front" was used in reference to:

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economic-and-cultural-explanations-of-right-wing-populism-by-dani-rodrik-2019-07

July 9, 2019

What's Driving Populism?
If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is rooted in culture and values, however, there are fewer options.
By DANI RODRIK ]

[Jul 31, 2019] What's Driving Populism? by DANI RODRIK

Notable quotes:
"... If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. ..."
"... On the other side of the argument, economists have produced a number of studies that link political support for populists to economic shocks ..."
"... Indeed, according to Autor, Dorn, Hanson, and Majlesi, the China trade shock may have been directly responsible for Trump's electoral victory in 2016. Their estimates imply that had import penetration been 50% lower than the actual rate over the 2002-14 period, a Democratic presidential candidate would have won the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, making Hillary Clinton the winner of the election. ..."
"... Ultimately, the precise parsing of the causes behind the rise of authoritarian populism may be less important than the policy lessons to be drawn from it. There is little debate here. Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | www.project-syndicate.org

What's Driving Populism?

If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is rooted in culture and values, however, there are fewer options.

By DANI RODRIK

CAMBRIDGE – Is it culture or economics? That question frames much of the debate about contemporary populism. Are Donald Trump's presidency, Brexit, and the rise of right-wing nativist political parties in continental Europe the consequence of a deepening rift in values between social conservatives and social liberals, with the former having thrown their support behind xenophobic, ethno-nationalist, authoritarian politicians? Or do they reflect many voters' economic anxiety and insecurity, fueled by financial crises, austerity, and globalization?

Much depends on the answer.

If authoritarian populism is rooted in economics, then the appropriate remedy is a populism of another kind – targeting economic injustice and inclusion, but pluralist in its politics and not necessarily damaging to democracy. If it is rooted in culture and values, however, there are fewer options. Liberal democracy may be doomed by its own internal dynamics and contradictions.1

Some versions of the cultural argument can be dismissed out of hand. For example, many commentators in the United States have focused on Trump's appeals to racism. But racism in some form or another has been an enduring feature of US society and cannot tell us, on its own, why Trump's manipulation of it has proved so popular. A constant cannot explain a change.

Other accounts are more sophisticated. The most thorough and ambitious version of the cultural backlash argument has been advanced by my Harvard Kennedy School colleague Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan. In a recent book, they argue that authoritarian populism is the consequence of a long-term generational shift in values.

As younger generations have become richer, more educated, and more secure, they have adopted "post-materialist" values that emphasize secularism, personal autonomy, and diversity at the expense of religiosity, traditional family structures, and conformity. Older generations have become alienated – effectively becoming "strangers in their own land." While the traditionalists are now numerically the smaller group, they vote in greater numbers and are more politically active.

Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center recently made a similar argument, focusing on the role of urbanization in particular. Wilkinson argues that urbanization is a process of spatial sorting that divides society in terms not only of economic fortunes, but also of cultural values. It creates thriving, multicultural, high-density areas where socially liberal values predominate. And it leaves behind rural areas and smaller urban centers that are increasingly uniform in terms of social conservatism and aversion to diversity.

This process, moreover, is self-reinforcing: economic success in large cities validates urban values, while self-selection in migration out of lagging regions increases polarization further. In Europe and the US alike, homogenous, socially conservative areas constitute the basis of support for nativist populists.

On the other side of the argument, economists have produced a number of studies that link political support for populists to economic shocks. In what is perhaps the most famous among these, David Autor, David Dorn, Gordon Hanson, and Kaveh Majlesi – from MIT, the University of Zurich, the University of California at San Diego, and Lund University, respectively – have shown that votes for Trump in the 2016 presidential election across US communities were strongly correlated with the magnitude of adverse China trade shocks. All else being equal, the greater the loss of jobs due to rising imports from China, the higher the support for Trump.

Indeed, according to Autor, Dorn, Hanson, and Majlesi, the China trade shock may have been directly responsible for Trump's electoral victory in 2016. Their estimates imply that had import penetration been 50% lower than the actual rate over the 2002-14 period, a Democratic presidential candidate would have won the critical states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, making Hillary Clinton the winner of the election.

Other empirical studies have produced similar results for Western Europe. Higher penetration of Chinese imports has been found to be implicated in support for Brexit in Britain and the rise of far-right nationalist parties in continental Europe. Austerity and broader measures of economic insecurity have been shown to have played a statistically significant role as well. And in Sweden, increased labor-market insecurity has been linked empirically to the rise of the far-right Sweden Democrats.

The cultural and economic arguments may seem to be in tension – if not downright inconsistent – with each other. But, reading between the lines, one can discern a type of convergence. Because the cultural trends – such as post-materialism and urbanization-promoted values – are of a long-term nature, they do not fully account for the timing of the populist backlash. (Norris and Inglehart posit a tipping point where socially conservative groups have become a minority but still have disproportionate political power.) And those who advocate for the primacy of cultural explanations do not in fact dismiss the role of economic shocks. These shocks, they maintain, aggravated and exacerbated cultural divisions, giving authoritarian populists the added push they needed.

Norris and Inglehart, for example, argue that "medium-term economic conditions and growth in social diversity" accelerated the cultural backlash, and show in their empirical work that economic factors did play a role in support for populist parties. Similarly, Wilkinson emphasizes that "racial anxiety" and "economic anxiety" are not alternative hypotheses, because economic shocks have greatly intensified urbanization-led cultural sorting. For their part, economic determinists should recognize that factors like the China trade shock do not occur in a vacuum, but in the context of pre-existing societal divisions along socio-cultural lines.1

Ultimately, the precise parsing of the causes behind the rise of authoritarian populism may be less important than the policy lessons to be drawn from it. There is little debate here. Economic remedies to inequality and insecurity are paramount.


Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

[Jul 31, 2019] Economist's View Links (7-15-19)

Jul 31, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , July 16, 2019 at 04:09 AM

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/krugman-plutocracy-economic-policy-by-j-bradford-delong-2019-07

July 9, 2019

Is Plutocracy Really the Problem?
After the 2008 financial crisis, economic policymakers in the United States did enough to avert another Great Depression, but fell far short of what was needed to ensure a strong recovery. Attributing that failure to the malign influence of the plutocracy is tempting, but it misses the root of the problem.
By BRADFORD DELONG

BERKELEY – Why did the policy response to the Great Recession only partly reflect the lessons learned from the Great Depression? Until recently, the smart money was on the answers given by the Financial Times commentator Martin Wolf and my Berkeley colleague Barry Eichengreen. Each has argued that while enough was remembered to prevent the 1929-size shock of 2008 from producing another Great Depression, many lessons were plowed under by a rightward ideological shift in the years following the crisis. Since then, the fact that the worst was avoided has served as an alibi for a suboptimal status quo.

Now, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman has offered * an alternative explanation: plutocracy. At the start of the 2010s, the top 0.01% – 30,000 people around the world, half of them in the United States – cared little about high unemployment, which didn't seem to affect them, but were greatly alarmed by government debt. They began demanding austerity, and, as Krugman contends, "the political and media establishment internalized the preferences of the extremely wealthy."

Would the US economy of the 2010s have been materially different if the share of total income accruing to the top 0.01% had not quadrupled in recent decades, from 1.3% to 5%? Krugman certainly thinks so. "While vigilance can mitigate the extent to which the wealthy get to define the policy agenda," he writes, "in the end big money will find a way – unless there's less big money to begin with." Hence, curbing plutocracy should be America's top priority.

In fact, big money does not always find a way, nor does its influence necessarily increase as the top 0.01% captures a larger share of total income. Whether the average plutocrat has 1,000 or 50,000 times more than the average worker makes little difference in this respect. More to the point, big money wasn't the primary determinant of whether policymakers heeded or forgot the lessons of the Great Depression.

For example, one lesson from that earlier episode is that high unemployment is extremely unhealthy for an economy and society; a depression is not, as the early twentieth-century economist Joseph Schumpeter once claimed, a "good, cold douche" for the economy. But this lesson was forgotten only by a lunatic fringe, some of whom suggested that the Great Recession was needed to shift workers out of bloated sectors such as home construction.

As for lessons that were forgotten, one is that persistent ultra-low interest rates means the economy is still short of safe, liquid stores of value, and thus in need of further monetary expansion. During and after the Great Recession, denying this plain truth and calling for an end to stimulus became a litmus test for any Republican holding or seeking office. Worse, these politicians were joined by an astonishingly large number of conservative economists, who conveniently seemed to forget that the short-term safe interest rate is a good thermometer for the economy.

To be sure, "big finance" did play a role here, by insisting that the Federal Reserve was trying to push value away from "fundamentals," even though economic fundamentals are generally whatever the Fed says they are. But an even more obvious culprit was hyper-partisanship.

Another lesson is that printing or borrowing money to buy stuff is an effective means for governments to address worryingly high unemployment. After 2009, the Obama administration effectively rejected this lesson, in favor of the logic of austerity, even though the unemployment rate was still 9.9%. A related lesson is that high levels of government debt need not lead to price instability or an inflationary spiral. As John Maynard Keynes argued in January 1937, "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury." Unfortunately, in the early 2010s, those of us who recalled this lesson were consigned to the margins of debate.

Yet, here, big-money influence was a secondary problem compared to the Democratic Party's broader surrender to neoliberalism, which started under President Bill Clinton, but reached its apotheosis in the Obama era. After all, the plutocracy itself profits when money is cheap and lending is dear.

The larger issue, then, is an absence of alternative voices. If the 2010s had been anything like the 1930s, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Conference Board would have been aggressively calling for more investment in America, and these arguments would have commanded the attention of the press. Labor unions would have had a prominent voice as advocates for a high-pressure economy. Both would have had very powerful voices inside the political process through their support of candidates.

Did the top 0.01% put something in the water to make the media freeze out such voices after 2008? Did the ultra-wealthy create our modern campaign-finance system, in which elite social networks and door-to-door canvassing are less important than a candidate's fund-raising totals? The problem is not so much that the plutocracy has grown stronger as that countervailing powers have disappeared. After all, there are wealthy donors and philanthropists on the left as well as the right, and some billionaires have even started to demand that they be taxed more.

Of course, the political implications of plutocracy are dangerous and destructive. In the US, Olin money has captured the judiciary, Koch money has misinformed the public about global warming, and Murdoch money routinely terrifies retirees about immigrants. But just because the public sphere is tainted and skewed by plutocratic influence does not mean that more rational policymaking is doomed. Once we are aware of the problem, we can begin to work around it.

Krugman admits as much when he warns "centrist politicians and the media not to pull another 2011, treating the policy preferences of the 0.1% as the Right Thing as opposed to, well, what a certain small class of people want." For journalists, academics, elected officials, and concerned citizens generally, the first task is to ask oneself everyday: Whose voices are getting more attention than they deserve, and who isn't being heard at all? Ultimately, it is the public that will decide the fate of the public sphere.

* https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/opinion/notes-on-excessive-wealth-disorder.html


J. Bradford DeLong is Professor of Economics at the University of California at Berkeley.

reason -> anne... , July 16, 2019 at 07:27 AM
"As for lessons that were forgotten, one is that persistent ultra-low interest rates means the economy is still short of safe, liquid stores of value, and thus in need of further monetary expansion."

I think this sentence is nonsense. Ultra low interest rates are a consequence of lots of low velocity money - and that is heavily correlated with income inequality. https://angrybearblog.com/2019/07/long-bond-yields.html

reason -> reason... , July 16, 2019 at 07:40 AM
It is not spelled out why he thinks this but I think he is really talking about the yield curve not interest rates as such. What he is saying is that if short term interest rates are low then the demand for short bonds is high because they are seen as an alternative to cash which is in short supply. If there was more cash then people would either invest more or spend more. But if all the cash is held by the very rich, there is not much evidence they will have much urgency to either spend it or invest it. Better to give any created money directly to poorer people so that it circulates.
RC (Ron) Weakley said in reply to reason... , July 16, 2019 at 07:58 AM
Great to hear from you again. We have been running short on reason.
Julio -> RC (Ron) Weakley... , July 16, 2019 at 10:01 AM
:-) Second the sentiment.
Paine -> Julio ... , July 17, 2019 at 10:04 AM
Double that second
ilsm -> reason... , July 16, 2019 at 08:45 AM
Short term rates are largely determined by the Fed.... there is almost no fed setting longer rates.

I suspect the fed balance sheet is keeping a lid on a lot of rates, the "low velocity" flow of MBS' stuck in the fed.

Suppose the cash used for the non treasury fed holdings were used for infrastructure?

kurt -> ilsm... , July 16, 2019 at 01:10 PM
That would be great. Also - the Fed does not have that power. The Republicans do and have for most of the past 40 years.
JohnH -> kurt... , July 16, 2019 at 01:27 PM
Ah, yes, the Fed does not have that power faux liberals reason for excusing the Fed from doing what needs to be done. Of course, they could bail out foreign governments and private enterprises with very dubious authority.

But who at the Fed or among Democrats is asking for the Fed to have the power to buy state bonds for infrastructure? [The silence is deafening!}

And kurt is lying about Republicans having had power form most of the last 40 years, as I have pointed out on multiple occasions. They never had anything close to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

However, if you include the significant number of Republicans who opportunistically define themselves as Democrats, many selected by Team Pelosi and Team Schumer, then you can argue than Republicans have dominated but only with the complicity of the Democratic leadership.

kurt -> JohnH... , July 16, 2019 at 03:13 PM
Are you positing that the Fed should ignore their charter and break the law? Are you positing that there was a time in the past 40 years where both the Dems having enough power to amend the Federal Reserve Act and a need to make such an amendment existed? When?
JohnH -> kurt... , July 16, 2019 at 09:14 PM
Is kurt so naïve as to believe that the Fed followed the letter of the law during the financial crisis? From what I saw it followed the letter of the law not when bailing out corporations and foreign banks but when it consistently refused to help mortgage holders.
kurt -> JohnH... , July 17, 2019 at 10:04 AM
The Fed was directed by legislation to do what you describe. Guess who voted for that legislation and signed it into law? It is really hard to take someone seriously when they don't know about TARP.
Paine -> kurt... , July 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM
The fed can be legislated to do anything congress wants done that also has
the potus support

Scotus v a peoples fed
Now that would be fun

kurt -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 10:41 AM
Yes - this is my point. The FED currently doesn't have the powers that some folks want them to have - and with Rs controlling the Senate for the foreseeable future, I don't see how the FED could gain that power - nor can I see a point over the last 40 years where those powers could have been granted - especially in 08-09 when they would have been useful.
Paine -> kurt... , July 17, 2019 at 11:29 AM
The senate is more important then trump head hunting

The party elite knows this but can't move base candidate and donation interest
to winnable seats in the senate

Running for control of congress like its an off potus cycle can be as base mobilizing as
Hell fire itself

Even if we have to back a bag of jelly like Biden for potus once the primes are over


Frankly trump facing a united congress would be a chance to bust the unitary prez
Paradigm right in the snoot

kurt -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 02:36 PM
The senate is structurally set up to favor rural voters. Throw in some voter suppression and some psyops from Putin and I don't see how that is going to change anytime soon.
kurt -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 03:39 PM
Also, Trump and a number of prominent Republicans are directly attacking democracy. Trump is an immediate emergency - but retaking the Senate is also vital.
JohnH -> kurt... , July 17, 2019 at 03:01 PM
The Fed [and Democrats] have no interest in expanding the Fed's power beyond helping banksters, corporations, and foreign banksters.

Since when is it illegal for the Fed to advocate for fiscal stimulus and to help the general public? Of course, it's not. But the last thing that banksters and their Democratic poodles will advocate is for the Fed to have authority to bail out we, the people.

Paine -> JohnH... , July 17, 2019 at 09:48 AM
The federal gov needs a few banks of its own obviously

Trying to make the fed those banks is prolly sub optimal

But the FED would still need a very clear interconnected set of roles to play
If uncle decided to seriously get into financing

Production facilities whether public infrastructure at state and local levels
or Industrial and agricultural development at the firm level

JohnH -> Paine ... , July 18, 2019 at 08:13 PM
The Fed already has a few banks of its own--the Wall Street banks that own it.

I'd prefer to have some more banks that didn't have such a massive conflict of interest. But instead, the Fed shrinks the number of big banks and tightens the banking oligopoly's grip on the industry every time there's a recession.

Paine -> JohnH... , July 17, 2019 at 10:03 AM
The federal government fell into lending systems for home mortgages

An unfortunate but corporate construction and development lobbies
pushed
slot
For uncle in the credit system
To inject public funds

Entering the lot market system
When residential lot values are not macro and micro regulated
Is bubble trouble time

kurt -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 10:05 AM
Lot values are highly micro regulated by local governments and favor rich white homeowners over all others.
Paine -> kurt... , July 17, 2019 at 10:47 AM
No
lot sizes and uses are regulated
Yes that has indirect value consequences

But direct value regulation say by a George tax
Is quite another matter

Btw
A George tax should be national
And very intricate

People's china listen up !

Paine -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 10:48 AM
And yes

Plutonian influence is decisive

Paine -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 10:48 AM
A national George tax would strike a blow for the pleb home owner
Paine -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 10:49 AM
Imagine if the lov
Cal lot taxs in Detroit for home owners was rebated and renters got rebates too
Not the landlords
kurt -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 02:39 PM
Fair enough. I am all in on georgist. But the fact remains that most of housing crisis is caused by local control of landuse. The value proposition is far, far from indirect. Otherwise, why would hoppin Palo Alto have wildly different housing values than Monterey or Pismo Beach. It is simple, because the entire bay area restricts supply via zoning.
mulp said in reply to JohnH... , July 17, 2019 at 11:23 PM
I thought immediately of you when I read this on politico:

"When the Obama administration persuaded Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties in 2009, helping Democrats briefly hold a 60-vote Senate supermajority, blogger-activists who could not forgive Specter's conservative past helped Rep. Joe Sestak defeat Specter in the 2010 primary. Specter's willingness to participate in a Netroots Nation primary debate proved insufficient for the blogosphere. The victory was pyrrhic, as Sestak then lost the general election to a Republican."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/17/democratic-netroots-markos-moulitsas-227363

Only the US Congress Senate out of the 50 something legislatures in the US has the filibuster, and the GOP has controlled the entire legislature in more than half for the past quarter century, and at least one chamber in as many as 40 quite often.

And defeating everything you advocate merely requires blocking new laws.

Thus, you are defeated easily by the GOP, yet you keep blaming Obama and Pelosi, but never the GOP who can "veto" everything you want.

JohnH -> mulp ... , July 18, 2019 at 11:39 AM
With the filibuster, Democrats could also veto any obnoxious Republican issue they want but they don't. They'd rather let the social safety net be shredded than exercise their veto power.

Worse, the Democratic leadership is cunning enough to make sure enough Republicans posing as Democrats in order to get many Republican initiatives passed. You have a current example in the House, where Pelosi bends over backwards to appease conservative Blue Dogs while accommodating the huge progressive caucus with great reluctance.

Paine -> ilsm... , July 17, 2019 at 10:27 AM
The fed has now bought and sold a wide range of securities
Nothing is beyond the FED to repeat or extend into more markets

Imagine the fed buying and selling an index of all publically traded stocks
Someday as roger Farmer urges the fed to do

Legislation can open any of these markets to the fomc

Paine -> ilsm... , July 17, 2019 at 10:30 AM
A people's FED would regulate all paper markets by participation
Paine -> reason... , July 17, 2019 at 10:33 AM

Short safe notes are limited
But cash and reserves are over flowing
Paine -> Paine ... , July 17, 2019 at 10:33 AM
The treasury needs to issue more notes and the fed can buy them
if market rates rise above
Target

[Jul 31, 2019] Team D would rather lose to Trump than reform. This is entirely consistent with The Iron Law of Oligarchy and especially The Iron Law of Institutions.

Notable quotes:
"... Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support. ..."
"... Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown. ..."
"... That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR . ..."
"... The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind. ..."
"... Foreign policy does not elect American presidents. I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House. ..."
Jul 31, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates in this young election cycle. "Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?"

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa 2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding, "Whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have got to be completely engaged."

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.

Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani . Except Paul, then a relatively unknown congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national GOP frontrunner. Gabbard is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3 percent.

Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify.

The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa. Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support.

Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former secretary of housing and urban development Julian Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's making, expanding Medicare to cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes illegal immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.

Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown.

The Tulsi Effect: Forcing War Onto the Democratic Agenda Memo to Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi

"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans -- The View brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of Congress's will on Yemen.

That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time.

Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad, she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention, failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these matters than hawks .

A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee will be a covert hawk rather than a secret right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.

W. James Antle III is the editor of .


a spencer15 hours ago

I generally like Tulsi, but she's a mixed bag for Democrats and an easy mark for her Beltway opponents. She needs more time, but could be a very effective member of a Democrat's cabinet.
interguru15 hours ago
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR .
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87 percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."

A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing!

𝙆𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙮 𝙐𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙚15 hours ago
For me, a candidates stance on war will be one of the deciding factors as to their earning my vote -- So far Tulsi's position has my interest.
Brian13 hours ago
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary.
polistra2412 hours ago
Doesn't matter. Candidates and presidents are puppets. Some puppets are more interesting than others.
blimbax 10 hours ago
Anyone who wants to keep as much focus on foreign policy issues as possible during the Democratic Party primary campaigns should contribute to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. It looks like she needs another 20,000 unique contributors in order to qualify for the third debate in September. Even contributing a dollar or two is sufficient.
Alex (the one that likes Ike)8 hours ago
Fortunately, she is yet so young. She has many years before her, and, when the old Democratic Party dies, much like its old Republican counterpart did in 2016, Tulsi and people like her will be able to take over.

Also, covert hawks are either critically endangered or extinct in the wild. They're all open now in both parties.

Zaphod Braden7 hours ago
Tulsi is the only Democrat that could beat Trump . ...makes me wonder is this all a dog & pony show?
Tulsi is a combat vet who could shame Trump.
deepdiver5 hours ago
tulsi needs to make a stand and and pull away from the leftists..she will not so "aloha tulsi, see ya" sistah"
Hank Linderman4 hours ago
Tulsi will be the leading progressive / conservative on the stage this evening, looking forward to seeing how she handles being asked to criticize Bernie. (I'm a Tulsi fan.)

Btw, a saner American Conservative would realize a big field almost always looks like this. Can you name the 20 or so who ran as Republicans a few years ago?

The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind.

What you seem to be missing about the Democratic Party is that the rift between progressives (extremists asking for higher wages for those who work, etc.) and establishment types (let's fix the ACA) is ultimately more significant than the upcoming Presidential election.

This is why I tell anyone who askes that I don't have a favorite for the Democratic Presidential nominee yet, but I know exactly who I want for VP. That person is whoever comes in second. If HRC had chosen Bernie for VP, she would be President today and no Republican Congress would have dared to impeach her for fear of seating the first Democratic Socialist President in America's history.

After multiple *change* elections that have failed to deliver, change will once again be on the ballot in 2020. This time, for the sake of our Nation and our world, let's hope it's real change this time. Tulsi would certainly be part of that, maybe not as a nominee, but in the Cabinet.

Sid Finster3 hours ago
Team D would rather lose to Trump than reform. This is entirely consistent with The Iron Law of Oligarchy and especially The Iron Law of Institutions.
Mark Thomason3 hours ago
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents. I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House.

Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.

Bakka ja nai2 hours ago
I will vote for her in the California primaries, even if I have to write her in as a candidate.

[Jul 30, 2019] I believe Warren has authenticity as far as being anti-Wall Street

Notable quotes:
"... I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren! ..."
"... Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity. ..."
"... Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering. ..."
"... Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate! ..."
"... Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary were all part of the same administration. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jason , Jul 30 2019 1:20 utc | 51

I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren!

In the primaries I will support Gabbard, I believe she is as real of an anti-war candidate as there is, not perfect, but it is all relative.

Sanders would get my vote, too, although I do fear he is a bit of a "sheep-dog" but I'd give him a shot.

If not one of those candidates, oddly, I'll vote for Trump. Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity.

I see a repeat of the 2016 election on the horizon, with the DNC doubling down on idiocy and losing in a similar fashion. They haven't learnt a thing from 2016 and think hyperventilating while screaming Trump, Trump, Trump is going to win the election.

Circe , Jul 30 2019 13:37 utc | 85

Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering.

My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute, will vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump.

My feeling is that there will be war in Trump's second term. Trump will be much bolder and more fascist after getting another mandate and having nothing to lose. Trump will be a war President having invested more than any other President on military hardware and itching to show it off. He hasn't fired his hawks for a reason. He will be more full of himself and his own importance in history. His Zionist financiers will get their money's worth in spades. His agenda will be more hostile on Iran and China and he'll finish what he started in Venezuela. He will lose the detente with NK, and after the election, he will no longer give friendly lip service to Russia especially on Syria and Venezuela and will expect Russia to go along with what he has planned for Iran.

Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate!

nottheonly1 , Jul 30 2019 13:44 utc | 86

I wonder when people will start to call the executive of the US what it has been for some time now:

The Fascist US Regime

Does anybody believe this is going to end well?

bevin , Jul 30 2019 15:29 utc | 93
"My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute, will vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump....."

Biden is Hillary without the feminist support. No way that he could beat Trump.

"Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. .."

Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary were all part of the same administration.

There is only one Democrat, among the announced candidates, who can beat Trump and his name is Sanders.

[Jul 30, 2019] The -Existential Battle- Is for Control of the Democratic Party

The purpose of the "Clintonized" Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent to neoliberal rule in an orderly fashion. The militarization of US economy and society means that by joining the war coalition, the Democratic party doesn't have to win any presidential elections to remain in power. Because military-industrial complex rules the country.
Yes Clinton neoliberals want to stay in control and derail Sanders, much like they did in 2016. Biden and Harris are Clinton faction Trojan horses to accomplish that. But times changed and they might have to agree on Warren inread of Biden of Harris.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities). ..."
"... So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. ..."
"... I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes ..."
"... electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin. ..."
"... The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible. ..."
"... Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go. ..."
"... In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan. ..."
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street – at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
"... By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.' In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead. ..."
"... Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now? ..."
"... " The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion." ..."
"... Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. ..."
"... Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America. ..."
"... actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else. ..."
"... the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country. ..."
"... The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses. ..."
"... The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

... ... ...

That 2020 existential battle, of course, is always cast as between the Democrats and the Republicans.

But there's another existential battle going on, one that will occur before the main event -- the battle for control of the Democratic Party. In the long run, that battle may turn out to be more important than the one that immediately follows it.

... ... ...

Before mainstream Democrats can begin the "existential battle" with the forces of Trump and Republicanism, they have to win the existential battle against the force that wants to force change on their own party.

They're engaged in that battle today, and it seems almost all of the "liberal media," sensing the existential nature of the threat, is helping them win it. Katie Halper, in a second perceptive piece on the media's obvious anti-Sanders bias, " MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous ," writes: "When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah ( 7/21/19 ) said that Bernie Sanders 'made [her] skin crawl,' though she 'can't even identify for you what exactly it is,' she was just expressing more overtly the anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network."

... ... ...

MSNBC is clearly acting as a messaging arm of the Democratic Party mainstream in its battle with progressives in general and Sanders in particular, and Zerlina Maxwell, who's been variously employed by that mainstream, from her work with Clinton to her work on MSNBC, is an agent in that effort.

Let me repeat what Matt Taibbi wrote: " [Sanders'] election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector. "

... ... ...


TG , July 30, 2019 at 1:45 pm

Agreed. Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with.

Trump campaigned on enforcing the laws against illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration, but he's now pretty much given up, the southern border is open full "Camp of the Saints" style and he's pushing for more legal 'guest' workers to satisfy the corporate demands for cheap labor – and the Democrats are for this (though Sanders started to object back in 2015 before he was beaten down).

Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities).

Soon I expect that Trump will propose massive regressive tax increases on the working class – which of course the Democrats will be fine with ('to save the planet').

So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have.

And elections are pretty much pointless. Even if Sanders does win, he'll get beaten down faster even than Trump was.

Redlife2017 , July 30, 2019 at 4:52 am

I think people have a hard time with real inflection points. Most of life uses more short-term linear decision making. But at inflection points we have multiple possibilities that turn into rather surprising turns of events, such as Brexit and Trump. We still have people saying in the UK – "but they wouldn't do that!" The hell "they" won't. Norms are thrown out of the window and people start realising how wide the options are. This is not positive or negative. Just change or transformation.

That is my philosophical way of agreeing with you! It is easy to point at the hostility of the mainstream media and DNC as there being no way for Sanders to win. After all in 2004, look what the media and DNC did to Howard Dean. But people weren't dying then like they are now. The "Great Recession" wasn't on anyone's radar. People felt rich, like everything would be fine. We are not in that situation – the facts on the ground are so wildly different that the DNC and mainstream media will find it hard to stay in control.

Nax , July 30, 2019 at 2:42 am

I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes.

If Sanders should win against Trump expect the establishment to go into full revolt. Capital strike, mass layoffs, federal reserve hiking interest rates to induce a recession, a rotating cast of Democrats siding with Republicans to block legislation, press comparing him to worse than Carter before he even takes office and vilifying him all day every day.

I wouldn't be shocked to see Israel and the Saudis generate a crisis in, for example, Iran so Sanders either bends the knee to the neocons or gets to be portrayed as a cowardly failure for abandoning our 'allies' for the rest of his term.

Tyronius , July 30, 2019 at 4:59 am

You've just convinced me that the American Experiment is doomed. No one else but Sanders can pull America out of its long slow death spiral and your litany of the tactics of subversion of his presidency is persuasive that even in the event of his electoral victory, there will be no changing of the national direction.

JCC , July 30, 2019 at 9:05 am

I'm reading a series of essays by Morris Berman in his book "Are We There Yet". A lot of critics complain that he is too much the pessimist, but he presents some good arguments, dark though they may be, that the American Experiment was doomed from the start due to the inherent flaw of Every Man For Himself and its "get mine and the hell with everybody else" attitude that has been a part of the experiment from the beginning.

He is absolutely right about one thing, we are a country strongly based on hustling for money as much or more than anything else, and both Trump and the Clintons are classic examples of this, and why the country often gets the leaders it deserves.

That's why I believe that we need people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Oval Office. It is also why I believe that should either end up even getting close, Nax is correct. Those with power in this country will not accept the results and will do whatever is necessary to subvert them, and the Voter will buy that subversion hook, line, and sinker.

Left in Wisconsin , July 30, 2019 at 11:32 am

No. The point is that electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin.

The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible.

Big River Bandido , July 30, 2019 at 7:16 am

Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 6:09 am

In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan.

The high ground is being able to express a new vision for the common good, 24/7, and do something to bring it about. You win even if you suffer losses.

Without that, life in the USA will become very disruptive to say the least.

g3 , July 30, 2019 at 4:08 am

Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/hope-killers-by-paul-street/

Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:

i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;

(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"

(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;

iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly.

It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us.

The Rev Kev , July 30, 2019 at 4:43 am

Pretty bad optics on MSNBC's part being unable to do simple numbers and I can fully believe that their motto starts with the words "This is who we are". Jimmy Dore has put out a few videos on how bad MSNBC has been towards Bernie and Progressives lately so it is becoming pretty blatant. Just spitballing a loose theory here but perhaps the Democrats have decided on a "poisoned chalice" strategy and do want not to win in 2020.

After 2008 the whole economy should have had a major re-set but Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street – at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse.

Point is that perhaps the Democrats have calculated that it would be best for them to leave the Republicans in power to own this crash which will help them long term. And this explains why most of those democrat candidates look like they have fallen out of a clown car. The ones capable of going head to head with Trump are sidelined while their weakest candidates are pushed forward – people like Biden and Harris. Just a theory mind.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 7:18 am

The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.

By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.

I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre. Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong. Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.

Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist path.

In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end.

This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.

notabanker , July 30, 2019 at 9:17 am

This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.

When their fiat money is worthless, we'll see how effective that "wrath" really is.

ambrit , July 30, 2019 at 12:55 pm

By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.'
In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead.

Carey , July 30, 2019 at 3:49 pm

Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now?

Phil in KC , July 30, 2019 at 1:09 pm

" The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion."

Wow! I'm going to be keeping that little nugget in mind as I watch the debates. Well-stated, Norb.

DJG , July 30, 2019 at 8:43 am

If the nation wishes true deliverance, not just from Trump and Republicans, but from the painful state that got Trump elected in the first place, it will first have to believe in a savior.

No, no, no, no, no. No oooshy religion, which is part of what got us into this mess. Cities on a hill. The Exceptional Nation(tm). Obligatory burbling of Amazing Grace. Assumptions that everyone is a Methodist. And after Deliverance, the U S of A will be magically re-virginated (for the umpteenth time), pure and worthy of Manifest Destiny once again.

If you want to be saved, stick to your own church. Stop dragging it into the public sphere. This absurd and sloppy religious language is part of the problem. At the very least it is kitsch. At its worst it leads us to bomb Muslim nations and engage in "Crusades."

Other than that, the article makes some important points. In a year or so, there will be a lot of comments here on whether or not to vote for the pre-failed Democratic candidate, once the Party dumps Bernie Sanders. There is no requirement of voting for the Democrats, unless you truly do believe that they will bring the Deliverance (and untarnish your tarnished virtue). Vote your conscience. Not who Nate Silver indicates.

mle in detroit , July 30, 2019 at 10:30 am

+100

ptb , July 30, 2019 at 9:21 am

Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. The leading issue of the day (Iraq/GWOT/Patriot Act) was erased from mainstream US politics and has been since. Don't for a minute think they won't do a similar thing now. Big donors don't particularly fear Trump, nor a 6-3 conservative supreme court, nor a Bolton state dept, nor a racist DHS/ICE – those are not money issues for them.

KYrocky , July 30, 2019 at 9:32 am

Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America.

The candidate who would fight and would govern for the 90% of Americans is a revolutionary.

The fact that it can be said as a given that neither major Party is being run specifically to serve the vast majority of our country is itself an admission for that the class war begun by Reagan has been won, in more of a silent coup, and the rich have control of our nation.

Sadly, actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else.

Sanders is considered a revolutionary merely for stating the obvious, stating the truth. That is what makes him dangerous to those that run the Democratic Party, and more broadly those who run this nation.

Sanders would do better to cast himself not as a revolutionary, but as a person of the people, with the belief that good government does not favor the wants of the richest over the needs of our country. That is what makes him a threat. To the rich unseen who hold power, to the Republican Party, and to some Democrats.

freedomny , July 30, 2019 at 11:28 am

Good read:

https://eand.co/why-the-21st-century-needs-an-existential-revolution-c3068a10b689

dbk , July 30, 2019 at 11:45 am

Perhaps another indication of internal discord that's getting out of hand:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/5-more-top-dccc-staffers-out-in-ongoing-diversity-saga

I agree with the thesis here, and confess to being puzzled by comments on LGM (for example) politics threads of the ilk "I'm with Warren but am good with Buttigieg too," or "I'm with Sanders but am good with Harris, too," etc.

Really?

Matthew G. Saroff , July 30, 2019 at 11:55 am

I love reading Taibbi, but in his article , that quote, " Sanders is the revolutionary. His election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector ," should be the lede, and its buried 2/3 of the way down.

This primary season is about how the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country.

flora , July 30, 2019 at 1:07 pm

Yves writes: it is unfortunate that this struggle is being personified, as in too often treated by the media and political operatives as being about Sanders.

I agree. Sanders represents the continuing New Deal-type policies. The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses.

The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies.

The MSM won't talk about any of the programmatic differences between the two sides. The MSM won't recognize the New Deal style Democratic voters even exist; the New Deal wing voters are quickly labeled 'deplorable' instead voters with competing economic policies to the current economic policies.

So, we're left with the MSM focusing on personalities to avoid talking about the real policy differences, imo.

sharonsj , July 30, 2019 at 2:53 pm

When Bernie talks about a revolution, he explains how it must be from the grassroots, from the bottom up. If he manages to get elected, his supporters have to make sure they get behind the politicians who also support him and, if they don't, get rid of them.

Without continuing mass protests, nothing is going to happen. Other countries have figured this out but Americans remain clueless.

[Jul 30, 2019] Warren targets corporate power with plan to overhaul trade policy TheHill

Jul 30, 2019 | thehill.com

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Elizabeth Ann Warren Poll: Beto O'Rourke leads 2020 Democrats in Texas by 3 points, followed by Biden Coalition to air anti-Medicare for All ads during Democratic debates Marianne Williamson: I am not a 'wacky new-age nutcase' MORE (D-Mass.) on Monday released a plan to use trade policy as a tool to create stronger safeguards for labor, the environment and regions of the country harmed by globalization.

Warren's plan would overhaul the process by which the U.S. proposes, writes, finalizes and enforces trade deals while imposing strict standards for any nation seeking or currently in a free trade deal with the U.S.

ADVERTISEMENT

In a Medium post outlining the extensive trade proposal, Warren said her approach to trade is centered on using the United States' immense leverage to protect domestic industries and workers.

Warren argued U.S trade policy has ceded too much power to international corporations, squandering the country's ability to defend its manufacturers, farmers and laborers.

"As President, I won't hand America's leverage to big corporations to use for their own narrow purposes," Warren wrote. "We will engage in international trade -- but on our terms and only when it benefits American families."

Warren's plan is among the most comprehensive proposals to replace President Trump Donald John Trump Professor installs seesaws across US-Mexico border to form connection 'on both sides' What the world can expect from the Boris Johnson government Marianne Williamson: I am not a 'wacky new-age nutcase' MORE 's tariff-based trade policy with a holistic protectionist agenda.

Trump has imposed more than $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, foreign steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines since taking office in 2017. The president has used import taxes as leverage in trade talks and inducement for companies to produce goods in the U.S., but manufacturing job gains and activity have faded throughout the year.

U.S. farmers and ranchers have also lost billions of dollars in foreign sales due to retaliatory tariffs imposed on American agricultural goods.

Warren acknowledged that while tariffs "are an important tool, they are not by themselves a long-term solution to our failed trade agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this Administration clearly lacks."

Warren said she instead would pursue deals and renegotiate current agreement to "force other countries to raise the bar on everything from labor and environmental standards to anti-corruption rules to access to medicine to tax enforcement."

To do so, Warren would expand the ability of Congress and noncorporate advocates to see and shape trade deals as their being negotiated, not after they have been submitted to lawmakers for approval

Warren proposed staffing trade advisory panels with a majority of representatives from labor and environmental and consumer advocacy groups. She also called for special advisory panels for consumers, rural areas and each region of the country, "so that critical voices are at the table during negotiations."

Under Warren's plan, trade negotiators would be required to submit drafts of pending agreements to Congress and submit them for public comment through the same process used by federal regulators to propose and finalize rules.

Warren's plan also raises the bar for entry into a trade deal with the U.S. and seizes more power for the federal government to enforce agreements.

Warren proposed a list of nine standards required of any country seeking a U.S. trade deal including several international tax, climate and human rights treaties. She noted that the U.S. "shamefully" does not comply with some of these standards, but would do so under her presidency.

The plan also excludes any nation on the Treasury Department's currency manipulation monitoring list from a potential U.S. trade deal. As of May, that list includes China, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

Nations in trade deals with the U.S. would also be required to support subsidies for green energy, follow U.S. food inspection standards, pay a fee on goods produced using "carbon-intensive" processes and agree to stricter anti-trust standards.

[Jul 30, 2019] The main task of Democratic Party is preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left and killing such social movements

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

g3 , July 30, 2019 at 4:08 am

Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/hope-killers-by-paul-street/

Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:

i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;

(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"

(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;

iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly.

It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us.

Norb , July 30, 2019 at 7:18 am

The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.

By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.

I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre. Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong. Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.

Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist path.

In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end.

This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.

[Jul 30, 2019] Empires in decline tend to behave badly

Notable quotes:
"... Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior. ..."
Jul 30, 2019 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

"Empires in decline tend to behave badly. Indeed, whether British, French or Russian, the twilight years of imperialism often brought brutal repression of subjects abroad, the suppression of civil liberties at home and general varieties of brutality toward foreigners, be they refugees or migrants.

Aggressive wars abroad pollute the domestic political discourse and breed hypernationalism, racism and xenophobia. The 18 or so years of war following the 9/11 attacks have seen this ostensible republic sink to new lows of behavior.

Aggressive wars of choice have ushered in rampant torture, atrocities in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, drone assassinations, warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the citizenry...

It's all connected. The empire -- all empires -- eventually come home."

Maj. Danny Sjursen, An American Tragedy: Empire at Home and Abroad

[Jul 30, 2019] The New Quincy Institute Seeks Warmongering Monsters to Destroy The American Conservative

Jul 30, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The New Quincy Institute Seeks Warmongering Monsters to Destroy Andrew Bacevich on his new left-right group, which is going hammer and tongs against the establishment on foreign policy. By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos • July 30, 2019

Andrew J. Bacevich participates in a panel discussion at the U.S. Naval War College in 2016. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Christian S. Eskelund/Released) For the last month, the foreign policy establishment has been abuzz over the new kid on the block: the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft , named for John Quincy Adams. Adams, along with our first president George Washington, warned of foreign entanglements and the urge to go abroad in "search of monsters to destroy," lest America's fundamental policy "insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit ."

Those in the foreign policy Blob have had different reactions to the "upstart" think tank. These are the preeminent organizations that stand imperious in size and square footage, but have lacked greatly in wisdom and clarity over the last 20 years. Quincy will stand apart from them in two significant ways: it is drawing its intellectual and political firepower from both the anti-war Left and the realist and restraint Right. And it is poised to support a new "responsible statecraft," one that challenges the conditions of endless war, including persistent American militarism here and abroad, the military industrial complex, and a doctrine that worships primacy and a liberal world order over peace and the sovereignty of other nations.

Quincy, which is rolling out its statement of principles this week (its official launch will be in the fall), is the brainchild of Trita Parsi, former head of the National Iranian-American Council, who saw an opening to bring together Left and Right academics, activists, and media disenchanted by both sides' pro-war proclivities. Together with Vietnam veteran and former Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich (also a longtime TAC contributor), the Carnegie Endowment's Suzanne DiMaggio, Columbia University's Stephen Wertheim, and investigative journalist Eli Clifton, the group wants to serve as a counterweight to both liberal interventionists like the Brookings Institution and Council on Foreign Relations, and the war hawks and neoconservatives of the Heritage Foundation and Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

They've already taken hits from both sides of the establishment, dismissed brusquely as naive , or worse, isolationist (that swipe from neoconservative Bill Kristol, whose now-defunct Weekly Standard once ran a manifesto headlined "The Case for American Empire" ). The fact that Quincy will be funded by both George Soros on the Left and the Charles Koch Foundation on the Right has brought some rebuke from unfriendlies and even some friendlies. The former hate on one or the other powerful billionaire, while the latter are wary of Soros' intentions (he's has long been a financial supporter of "soft-power" democracy movements overseas, some of which have encouraged revolution and regime change).

Advertisement

But Quincy's timing couldn't be more perfect. With a president in the White House who has promised to draw down U.S. involvement overseas (with the exception of his Iran policy, he has so far held to much of that pledge), and national conservatives coming around to TAC's long-held worldview on realism and restraint (and an increasing willingness to reach across the aisle to work with like-minded groups and individuals), Quincy appears poised to make some noise in Washington.

According to the group's new statement of principles , "responsible statecraft" 1) serves the public interest, 2) engages the world, 3) builds a peaceful world, 4) abhors war, and 5) is democratic.

Andrew Bacevich and Trita Parsi expanded on this further in a recent Q&A with TAC.

(Full disclosure: the author is on Quincy's steering committee and TAC also receives funding from the Charles Koch Foundation.)

TAC : Quincy's principles -- and thus it's name -- are rooted in the mission of "responsible statecraft." Can you give me a sense of what that means in practical terms, and why you settled on this phrasing for the institute?

AB: With the end of the Cold War, policy elites succumbed to an extraordinary bout of hubris, perhaps best expressed in the claim that history had designated the United States as its "indispensable nation." Hubris bred recklessness and irresponsibility, with the Iraq war of 2003 as Exhibit A. We see "responsible statecraft" as the necessary antidote. Its abiding qualities are realism, restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement. While the QI is not anti-military, we are wary of war except when all other alternatives have been exhausted. We are acutely conscious of war's tendency to produce unintended consequences and to exact unexpectedly high costs.

TAC : Quincy is a trans-partisan effort that is bringing together Left and Right for common cause. Is it a challenge?

AB: It seems apparent to us that the myriad foreign policy failures and disappointments of the past couple of decades have induced among both progressives and at least some conservatives a growing disenchantment with the trajectory of U.S. policy. Out of that disenchantment comes the potential for a Left-Right coalition to challenge the status quo. The QI hopes to build on that potential.

TAC : Two of the principles take direct aim at the current foreign policy status quo: responsible statecraft abhors war, and responsible statecraft is democratic (calling out a closed system in which Americans have had little input into the wars waged in their names). How much of what Quincy aims to do involves upending conventional norms, particularly those bred and defended by the Washington "Blob"?

AB: In a fundamental sense, the purpose of the QI is to educate the American people and their leaders regarding the Blob's shortcomings, exposing the deficiencies of old ideas and proposing new ones to take their place.

TAC: That said, how much blowback do you anticipate from the Washington establishment, particularly those think tanks and individuals whose careers and very existence depend on the wheels of militarism forever turning?

AB : Plenty. Proponents of the status quo are entrenched and well-funded. Breaking old habits -- for example, the practice of scattering U.S. military bases around the world -- will not come easily.

TAC : There has been much ado about your two primary funders -- Charles Koch and George Soros. What do you say to critics who suggest you will be tied to/limited by their agendas?

AB: Our funding sources are not confined to Koch and Soros and we will continue to broaden our support base. It's not for me to speak for Koch or Soros. But my guess is they decided to support the QI because they support our principles. They too believe in policies based on realism, restraint, prudence, and vigorous engagement.

TAC : Better yet, how did you convince these two men to fund something together?

TP: It is important to recognize that they have collaborated in the past before, for instance on criminal justice reform. This is, however, the first time they've come together to be founding funders of a new entity. I cannot speak for them, but I think they both recognize that there currently is a conceptual deficit in our foreign policy. U.S. elite consensus on foreign policy has collapsed and the void that has been created begs to be filled. But it has to be filled with new ideas, not just a repackaging of old ideas. And those new ideas cannot simply follow the old political alignments. Transpartisan collaboration is necessary in order to create a new consensus. Koch and Soros are showing tremendous leadership in that regard.

TAC : The last refuge of a scorned hawk is to call his critics "isolationist." It would seem as though your statement of principles takes this on directly. How else does Quincy take this often-used invective into account?

AB : We will demonstrate through our own actions that the charge is false.

TAC : Critics (including James Traub, in his own piece on Quincy ) say that Washington leaders, once in office, are "mugged by reality," suggesting that the idea of rolling back military interventions and avoiding others sounds good on paper but presidents like Barack Obama had no choice, that this is all about protecting interests and hard-nosed realism. The alternative is a bit naive. How do you respond?

AB: Choices are available if our leaders have the creativity to recognize them and the gumption to pursue them. Obama's patient and resolute pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal affirms this possibility. The QI will expose the "we have no choice" argument as false. We will identify and promote choice, thereby freeing U.S. policy from outmoded habits and stale routines.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is e xecutive editor at . Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC

[Jul 30, 2019] Confessions of a latent SJW - TTG

Jul 03, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

A while back we were discussing the merits of a liberal arts education and the sad state of our current education system. As part of that discussion, I looked at the current curriculum of my old prep school to see if it changed much from when I was there. To my surprise and joy, it changed very little. Students are still required to take four years of theology good Jesuit theology. I was struck by the entry for the current theology department at Fairfield Prep and now present it below.

In light of the current discussion about the rise of the new bolsheviki in the Democratic Party, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the Ignatian approach to Roman Catholicism. I'm pretty sure many of you will consider the black robes to be quite red. I, on the other hand, find the teachings and example of Saint Ignatius of Loyola to be far more profound and worthy of emulation than anything Marx or Lenin ever dreamed of.

-- -- -- -- -- --

What is theology? Fundamentally, it's about conversation.

The Greek word Theós (God) combined with logos (word, or reason) describes what happens in theology classes at Fairfield Prep. Talking about God, discovering God in the person of Jesus Christ, asking questions, having discussions and debates, and exploring the truths of other world religions are some of the many things that happen in theology. Through exegetical analysis of Scripture, learning the philosophies of the Saints (in particular, St. Ignatius of Loyola), contemplation, and reflection, theology students at Fairfield Prep are drawn to a more intimate experience of the Divine in their own lives.

In the classroom, students are exposed to the teachings of Christ regarding the Gospel imperative – the care of the poor. Theology students are inspired to work for equality and social justice in their local and global communities.

In the spirit of Christ, through Ignatian practices, students are encouraged to grow spiritually and religiously by orienting themselves towards others. Practically speaking, students are called to "Find God in All Things." By recognizing the presence of the Divine within others and the universe we live in, students may be inspired to develop a deeper appreciation and love for Creation – in particular, care for our environment.

Morality, ethics, philosophy, history, science – they are all present within discussions of theology. Regardless of faith background (or lack thereof) all students are encouraged to express their beliefs and share their life experiences in their own ways. In theology, we are constantly working towards discovering Truth in our lives. Through science, history, literature, Scripture, and the Sacraments, we understand that God can be found in all things and in all ways here at Fairfield Prep. Join us as we continue the discussions, the questions, the reflections, and the actions that will make this world a more loving place for all.

- Mr. Corey J. Milazzo

Chair of the Theology Department

-- -- -- -- -- --

It's still there, the call to find God in all things and to be a man for others. I graduated a few years before Father Pedro Arrupe presented his dissertation and made his presentation which became known as his "Men for Others" thesis. But his ideas already ran through the halls and faculty of Fairfield Prep by the end of the 60s. Community service was an integral part of the curriculum back then as were frequent retreats based on the Ignatian spiritual exercises. They still are. The Jesuits molded us into men for others, social justice warriors, but with a keen sense of self-examination (the examen). When we graduated in the rose garden of Bellarmine Hall under a beautiful June sun, we were charged with the familiar Jesuit call "ite inflammate omnia" (go forth and set the world on fire).

That phrase in itself is provocative. It goes back to Saint Ignatius of Loyola himself. It may go back much further, back to Saint Catherine of Siena. One of her most repeated quotes is "Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire." Setting the world on fire must have a different meaning back then. It sounds down right revolutionary these days.

In more recent times, Jesuits participated in the development of liberation theology, a blending of the Church's professed preference for the poor and Marxism that is unsettling to many both in and outside the Church. This expression of strident social justice was never supported by the Vatican, especially when liberation theologists aligned themselves with armed Marxist revolutions. Even Pope Francis was not a fan although as Father Bergoglio he said,

"The option for the poor comes from the first centuries of Christianity. It's the Gospel itself. If you were to read one of the sermons of the first fathers of the Church, from the second or third centuries, about how you should treat the poor, you'd say it was Maoist or Trotskyist. The Church has always had the honor of this preferential option for the poor."

Pope Francis seeks reconciliation with rather than expulsion of the liberation theologists. This doesn't surprise me considering the Jesuits' firmly held faith in the primacy of conscience, the belief that an informed conscience is the ultimate and final authority on what is morally permissible, and it is the obligation of the individual to follow their conscience even if it contradicts or acts against Church teaching. I believe that, but I also believe the liberation theologists could benefit from a more rigorous examen to reach a higher sense of discernment and a truly informed conscience.

I think the 1986 film "The Mission" captured some of these ideas and struggles very well with the interplay of Father Gabriel, Roderigo Mendoza and both the secular and religious authorities of that time. As a product of a Jesuit and Special Forces education, this film resonated with me.

TTG

DOL - AMDG

[Jul 29, 2019] Evidence has emerged that the US State Department is tied to a child trafficking operation involving billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Notable quotes:
"... Evidence has emerged that the U.S. State Department is tied to a child trafficking operation involving Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. shared the tail number of his Bell Long Ranger 206L3 helicopter (tail number N474AW) with a U.S. State Department OV-10D Bronco ..."
"... . Descriptions of sex between adult males and underage females by XXX company employees in Bosnia in the 2000-2002 time frame coincides with descriptions of sex . on .. aircraft and [at] residences in Palm Beach, Florida; New Mexico; and on the island of Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Among the "Jane Does" filing suit against the U.S. government for concluding can anyone get the details of these suits? ..."
"... So so disgusting. First there was the catholic church pedophile scandal. Then there is the Epstein scandal ..."
Jul 23, 2019 | www.unz.com

sally , says: July 23, 2019 at 8:22 am GMT

https://friendsforsyria.com/2019/07/21/u-s-state-department-tied-to-child-trafficking-operation-with-epstein/

according to this article ..the following

Evidence has emerged that the U.S. State Department is tied to a child trafficking operation involving Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. shared the tail number of his Bell Long Ranger 206L3 helicopter (tail number N474AW) with a U.S. State Department OV-10D Bronco. According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration database. Descriptions of sex between adult males and underage females by XXX company employees in Bosnia in the 2000-2002 time frame coincides with descriptions of sex . on .. aircraft and [at] residences in Palm Beach, Florida; New Mexico; and on the island of Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Among the "Jane Does" filing suit against the U.S. government for concluding can anyone get the details of these suits?

mcohen , says: July 23, 2019 at 9:20 am GMT

So so disgusting. First there was the catholic church pedophile scandal. Then there is the Epstein scandal

... ... ...

Everything is broken.Time to call in the plumbers

[Jul 28, 2019] Tulsi, Israel and BDS movement

Jul 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Fluff The Cat , 1 hour ago link

Gabbard is more controlled opposition. Remember, she voted for the anti-BDS resolution, more sanctions and is anti-2nd Amendment. Don't be fooled by her shtick.

serotonindumptruck , 1 hour ago link

The Saker exposes Gabbard as the charlatan that she is.

https://thesaker.is/what-tulsi-gabbards-caving-in-to-the-israel-lobby-really-shows/

JD Rock , 50 minutes ago link

shes going after our guns first😡

CatInTheHat , 1 hour ago link

I will not support her.

She says she is against forever wars yet she voted to pass the monstrosity that is the new defense bill. She is also a friend to Israhell as she voted for anti BDS.

I don't listen to what politicians say but what they do that falls in line with the most important elements of empire.

[Jul 28, 2019] "A ruling class did that...they do not deserve to rule." Amen Tucker.

A great quote Tucker! "A daft old man blinking in the sunlight once the curtain was removed" Awesome!!!
This jerk is not familiar with Fusion GPS? After 3 years of taxpayer money spend down the drain on him and his frauds
Notable quotes:
"... Schiff Sandwiches and Nothing Burgers with a side order of Nadler Fries, served up by a senile old bureaucrat. ..."
"... Just think how Democrats must be feeling after building him up for three years as Captain America ..."
"... We learned Mueller never interviewed anyone or wrote his report. Who did? And what did he do for 2 1/2 years besides drink? ..."
Jul 28, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Theodore Bradley , 3 days ago

"For the record your name is Robert Mueller?" "I won't go into that"

Andy /// , 2 days ago

Muller is either an Oscar winning actor trying to avoid Self Incrimination or he is Senile.

RageDaug , 2 days ago

I wish conservatives would stop understating Fusion GPS. "Fusion GPS is the arm of the Clinton Campaign that colluded with a foreign agent, Christopher Steele, to work with Russians to obtain opposition research against Trump"

Bradly May , 2 days ago

I think Mueller was laying the groundwork for his upcoming trial. His lawyers will use a defense claiming he's old possible dementia or alzheimer's disease.

M Peezy , 3 days ago

Robert " I have no idea what my own report says " Mueller

Janet Gaurie , 2 days ago

What does it say about Robert Mueller? That he's senile or is obstructing justice.

HORNET1 , 2 days ago

Schiff Sandwiches and Nothing Burgers with a side order of Nadler Fries, served up by a senile old bureaucrat.

Cuba Blue , 2 days ago

Republicans have known for a long time that Mueller was not competent and even they were shocked at this hearing. Just think how Democrats must be feeling after building him up for three years as Captain America....LMFAO!

joanna freedom , 2 days ago (edited)

We learned Mueller never interviewed anyone or wrote his report. Who did? And what did he do for 2 1/2 years besides drink? Also Volume 2 is all speculation of " sources" aka MSM propaganda. A FAKE report of a FAKE investigation based on a FAKE dossier! 3 years of FAKE NEWS ON A FAKE CLAIM!!!

mike lee , 2 days ago

Robert Mueller wasn't in charge of his own investigation. He was told who to hire and then did zero work. He was a figure head. Someone to give credibility to an attempted coup.

seadooman o , 1 day ago (edited)

Fusion gps hes not filmilar??? he signed the Fisa warrant 3x .

karltbui , 2 days ago (edited)

"A ruling class did that...they do not deserve to rule." Amen Tucker.

Bloom Berg, 2 days ago

Republicans: 1+1 = 2. Is that right, sir ??
Mueller: Can you repeat that Question again.

[Jul 27, 2019] Elizabeth Warren The woman who predicted last financial crisis is sounding alarm again by Ros Krasny

Notable quotes:
"... But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said. ..."
"... Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not just those offered by politicians. ..."
"... But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive ..."
"... With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020 and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years), over following few years. ..."
Jul 27, 2019 | smh.com.au

Elizabeth Warren became a household name thanks to her prescient warning of what became a global financial crisis. Now she's staking her credentials on another forecast of fiscal trauma ahead. The Democratic presidential candidate published an online essay this week saying that a rise in consumer and corporate debt is imperilling the longest expansion in US history.

"Whether it's this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high - and growing," Warren wrote.

Her prediction could help her win over primary voters by tapping into anxieties about middle-class economic stability despite broad gains over the past decade. But Warren's opponents could seize on her warning to undermine her credibility should a crash fail to materialise before next year's election, and some economists sympathetic to her agenda say that - for the moment - her conclusion of a looming recession is overblown. Recessions are notoriously difficult to forecast. Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending, yet it was roughly five years later when the US housing market fully collapsed.

And although her dire forecast echoed in style some warnings made by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, Warren hasn't aligned with him in portraying her potential election to the White House as the only way to avert disaster. "I went through this back in the years before the 2008 crash, and no one wanted to listen.

So, here we are again," Warren said on Capitol Hill last week. "I'm trying to point out where the warning signs are. I hope our regulators and Congress listen, make changes, and that the economy strengthens."

Even economists who like her prescription are skeptical about her diagnosis. Warren rooted her concerns about the economy in a Federal Reserve report that found a 6.8 per cent increase in household debt over the past decade, allowing the Massachusetts senator to write that American families are "taking on more debt than ever before." But that figure is not adjusted for inflation, nor is it adjusted for population growth - and the number of US households has risen by 9.5 per cent during the same period, meaning that Fed data also shows debt levels have fallen on a per capita basis.

"I don't see a huge bubble on the other side of household debt that is going to savage people's assets," said Josh Bivens, director of research at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. At the moment, families can afford their debt because of low interest rates, and that minimises the risks to the economy. American households are devoting less than 10 per cent of their disposable income to debt service, down from roughly 13 per cent in 2008, according to the Fed. This doesn't mean that Warren is wrong to conclude that families are burdened by student debt and childcare costs, just that data suggests the debt produced by those expenses is unlikely to cause a downturn.

Part of Warren's forecast hinges on a spike in interest rates that seems unlikely as most benchmark rates have declined since November. Warren has assembled a litany of proposals aimed at bringing down household debt, through student loan forgiveness and affordable childcare availability as well as a housing plan designed to lower rent costs. She touted her policy agenda - which has propelled her higher in the polls - as ways to avert her predicted crash.

Warren's warning of a downturn is a somewhat unique maneuver for a presidential candidate. Past White House hopefuls have waited for the downturns to start before capitalising on them. Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, for example, on a post-recession message summed up by then-adviser James Carville's edict to focus on "the economy, stupid."

Warren also warned this week that an increase in corporate borrowing could crush the economy.

But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said.

Related Article Bumpy road ahead for US financial reforms

While the US economy may not be entering into a recession, many economic forecasters say growth is still slowing because of global and demographic pressures. Evidence of this has already caused Fed officials to signal that they plan to cut interest rates at their meeting next week. Trump has repeatedly called for the Fed to make even steeper cuts to improve his economic track record.

Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not just those offered by politicians.

But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive. "It's hard to say what a debt-driven problem would look like until it happens," Madowitz said.

"I think it's also reasonable to elevate concern at the moment given how politicised Trump has made apolitical economic institutions like the Fed. That's not a free lunch. It creates real risks, so it's more important than usual to think about what happens if things go bump in the night."

AP Mick 8 hours ago

I really have no idea about economics - seriously the mechanics of world financing, where every country seems to in debt baffles me. But if you look at the last 40 years or so - my adult life - there seems to be a stock market crash about each 10 years and a recession in the USA about each 10 years. From memory, stock markets in 1987, 1997, 2008 (I suppose also dot com stuff in around 1999/2000 as well). Recessions in the US in early 90's, early 2000's, 2009 into 2010's.

With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020 and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years), over following few years.

I wonder how my predictions will stand up to the experts. Gillespie 8 hours ago No facts seem to be the hallmark of your post. "Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending" shshus 10 hours ago The incoming economic meltdown in a insanely indebted global ponzi scheme is a no brainer. Despite Trump's usual bombast, the US economy is hardly growing and manufacturing is already in recession. The lunatic policies of central banks to offer free money at almost zero interest rates has caused a greed based credit frenzy that is simply unsustainable. The coming economic collapse will be far worse as the trade wars between US and China and rest of the world will simply compound the problem. Australia is particularly vulnerable in both economic and strategic terms. Time to batten the hatches, rather than pile on more consumer debt.

[Jul 27, 2019] Luongo Gabbard Going After Google Is Double Plus Good

Notable quotes:
"... Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters. ..."
"... This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law. ..."
"... On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed. ..."
"... Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire. ..."
"... You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military Industrial Complex & The Empire. ..."
Jul 27, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Luongo,

Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing Google . It's about time someone did. It's one thing to for conservatives and libertarians to be outraged by their treatment by the tech giant, it's another for them to go after a female Democrat.

Since Trump's election the campaign to curtail free speech has went into overdrive and we are now far beyond Orwell's dystopian vision in 1984 in terms of technological infrastructure.

Google makes Big Brother look like George Carlin's the Hippy Dippy Weather Man with the "hippy dippy weather, man." The drive to stamp out all forms of political division has only one thing animating it, protecting the drive of the elites I call The Davos Crowd to erect a transnational superstate to herd humanity to their vision of sustainability.

Gabbard is the only person running for the Democratic nomination worth any amount of my time. Her fundamental criticisms of the U.S. warfare state are spot on. She's sincere about this. It's costing her stature within her own party.

She's a committed anti-imperialist. She's also young, inexperienced and a little bit naive. But that, to me, is part of her charm. It means she is still malleable. She's smart enough to be outraged about where we are headed and young enough to be flexible about what the solutions are to stop it from happening.

So, as such, she's the perfect champion for the defenders of free speech and critics of the U.S. empire. A young, attractive, intelligent woman of mixed-race heritage with a service record who stands athwart the mainstream on the most important issue in politics today: the U.S. empire.

The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of U.S. politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.

The true third rail of U.S. politics is empire.

Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.

For that crime Google acted to blunt interest in her campaign in the critical hours after the first democratic debate. So, Gabbard, rightly, sued them.

The two main points of her lawsuit are:

1) suspending her Google Ad account for six hours while search traffic for her was spiking and

2) Gmail disproportionately junked her campaign emails.

This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law.

Whether this lawsuit goes anywhere or not is beside the point. Google will ignore it until they can't and then settle with her before discovery. Gabbard doing this is good PR for her as it sets her on the right side of an incredibly important issue, censorship and technological bias/de-platforming of political outsiders.

It's also good because if she does pursue this principally, it will lead to potential discovery of Google's internal practices, lending the DoJ a hand in pursuing all the big tech firms for electioneering.

On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed.

Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire.

As libertarians and conservatives it is irrelevant if she is conventional in other areas. It doesn't matter that she's been to a CFR meeting or two or that she's anti-gun. She's not going to be president.

This is not about our virtue-signaling about the purity of essence of our political figures. They are tools to our ends. And on now two incredibly important issues leading up to the 2020 election Tulsi Gabbard is on the right side of them.

She is someone we can and should reach out to and support while she makes these issues the centerpiece of her campaign. Her timing is even more excellent than what I've already stated.

Filing this lawsuit is a pre-emptive strike at Google now that she's qualified for the next two Democratic debates. And it may assist her in breaking out of the bottom tier of the Democratic field, Ron Paul style if she gets her opportunity.

Shedding light on Google's anti-free speech practices is a fundamental good, one we should celebrate. Dare I say, it's double plus good.

* * *

Join my Patreon and install Brave if you both hate big tech censorship and the empire in equal measure.


Thordoom , 8 minutes ago link

You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military Industrial Complex & The Empire.

If you won't kill this problem you can virtue signal about your left and right opinions about your perfect candidate as much as you want without getting anything done ( Trump). Purism won't help you. It only gets you distracted and controlled by the elites.

otschelnik , 11 minutes ago link

The point of this article is that Gabbard is taking on GOOGLE, for screwing with her account. See Google demonitizes, deboosts, deplatforms people without them even knowing it, and diddles their search algorythms NOT ONLY against conservatives, but for independent democrats like Gabbard. THAT'S THE POINT, not who or what Gabbard stands for. The dem party did the same to Gabbard during the 2016 election, cut her off from financing, because she supported Bernie Sanders.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3609

This is the sort of **** things dim's do, and progressive companies like Fakebook, Twatter and Goolag. Now Gabbard may not have views that we can support, but if she is taking on GOOLAG, than we should stand like a wall behind her. This is a big threat to 1st amendment rights.

chunga , 1 hour ago link

I hope this girl switches to an Independant. A lot of people are sick to death of the blues and the reds.

GoldHermit , 52 minutes ago link

Blues and reds is a sham used by the poliicians to divide the populace.

espirit , 48 minutes ago link

Throw in some greens and purples...

LetThemEatRand , 1 hour ago link

Good point, chunga. She is already being given the Ron Paul treatment by MSM (they either slam her as basically a naive fool, or just ignore her), so no way does she rise to the top of the **** pile of Blue Team candidates. Would make a good run as an independent, and maybe wake some people up.

[Jul 27, 2019] Hillary and Obama brought slavery back to Libya and ISIS and the largest refugee crisis since WW2 to Syria

Jul 27, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

emma peele , July 25, 2019 at 19:44

uh Hillary Clinton stood with Bush and lied the world into war. Hillary and Obama brought slavery back to Libya and ISIS and the largest refugee crisis since WW2 to Syria .
Dont forget genocide in Yemen ..

Hillary also supported disastrous free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA and {TPP that brought back slavery} that harm workers on both sides of the borders

Hillary also toppled a democratically elected president in Honduras with Death Squads and Obama killed 40,000 innocent t people with Sanctions in Venezuela

They are fleeing Hillary and Obama's Terror spree ..and cheer on worse WW3 with Russia

Reporter Quits NBC Citing Network's Support For Endless War

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/01/03/reporter-quits-nbc-citing-networks-support-for-endless-war/

On Venezuela, Tucker Airs Anti-Trump Ideas While Maddow Wants John Bolton To Be More Hawkish

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/05/05/on-venezuela-tucker-airs-anti-trump-ideas-while-maddow-wants-john-bolton-to-be-more-hawkish/

boxerwar , July 25, 2019 at 22:12

c.. Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes, Emma Peele, Without a Doubt – and I absolutely adore your "Avengers" pseudonym !

Hillary's disgusting crimes, however, seem to me to be an attempt to ingratiate herself (and the Democrats) with the Ultra Hawkish Bush Era Republicans.
Who can ever forgive & forget her ghoulish pronouncement, "We came, we saw, He died!!"
(in reference to the ghoulishly brutal public murder of Libya's Qaddafi. {Qaddafi's "Green Book" was a well imagined Socio-Economic plan for for the economic liberation of Africa from the economic and cultural strictures of US, European Absolutist Brutal Dominion.} -- As it was, Libya, under Qaddafi, was a liberal, socialist society with free education, free health care for all citizens, and a nation with it's own currency , free from US/EURO manipulation and control.

-- This Is Why We Killed Him. --
This is US Command and Control World-Wide POLICY ! ! ! --
-- Anglo-Saxon Command and Control of the Whole Wide World and all it's resources Owned and Militarily Controlled by European Bankers

-- - EUROPEAN Bankers, Rothschild Criminal Banker WarMongers/ Wall Street and American Military Power --

These are They which Evilly Rule the World and Disparage or Murder (annihilate) All Others at their pleasure, and Trump is an evil antagonist with the personage of a King Leopold.

Please find "KING LEOPOLD'S GHOST' By Adam Hochschild

[Jul 26, 2019] Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Co-Sponsors Audit The Fed Bill

Jul 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Co-Sponsors "Audit The Fed" Bill

by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/26/2019 - 15:50 0 SHARES

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Luke Rudkowski of " We Are Change ," a libertarian media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as H.R.24 The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019 .

The bill authorizes the General Accountability Office to perform a full audit of the Fed's conduct of monetary policy, including the Fed's mysterious dealings with Wall Street, central banks and governments.

During the interview, Massie said the latest development in attempting to audit the Federal Reserve is that Gabbard signed on as co-sponsor. He believes the topic will "get some airtime" in the upcoming presidential debates.

He said there are four Democratic co-sponsors and 80 Republican co-sponsors for the bill; it was recently passed in the House of Representatives as it heads to the Senate. Massie said:

"We have passed it in the House but have never passed it in the Senate. Because of a lot of these people in the House of Representatives who vote for it and support it in the House go to the Senate and decide it's not such a good idea."

Rudkowski then tells Massie about interesting parallels between some presidential candidates (Gabbard and Bernie Sanders), who have an anti-interventionists view along with being critical of the Federal Reserve.

Massie responds by saying, "Well if you're just trying to sorta tie the anti-war people to the Federal Reserve. I think the closest connection is the Federal Reserve enables the endless Wars that are being funded by controlling the value of our currency and without the massive borrowing and printing of money and controlling of interest rates - we wouldn't be able to sustain a permanent state of war. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WQEbGkzy6Sk

Last week, Ron Paul recently wrote that Massie needs to "expedite passage of their Audit the Fed legislation should the Federal Reserve decide to disobey the will of its creator – Congress – by involving itself in real-time payments. After all, their bipartisan legislation came just seven votes shy of passing not long ago. With the Fed extending its wings even further and the president finally making good on his promise to push the bill through, it should be all but certain of arriving on his Oval Office desk for signing."

With the US infected by a global industrial slowdown, and in President Trump's view a Federal Reserve-caused economic downturn, support for auditing the Fed will continue to increase among Americans across all political ideologies. It's not just Republicans who demand the audit, but now Gabbard and even Sanders (Democrats).

Auditing the Fed is the first step in changing monetary policy that has created a debt-and-bubble-based economy; promoted the welfare-warfare state; created the most massive wealth inequality crisis in history; led to an affordable housing crisis; transferred all the wealth to the top 1% of America, and could lead to the collapse of the American empire if not corrected in the next several years.

[Jul 26, 2019] The Dems Have No Trump

Notable quotes:
"... The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see. ..."
"... After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises Cummings full control. ..."
"... The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority. ..."
"... [..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ, who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are inclined to vote to leave. ..."
"... [..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them. ..."
"... And now Cummings is back to finish the job. ..."
"... "algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools" ..."
"... They were sending targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly? ..."
Jul 26, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

It's a development that has long been evident in continental Europe, and that has now arrived on the shores of the US and UK. It is the somewhat slow but very certain dissolution of long-existing political parties, organizations and groups. That's what I was seeing during the Robert Mueller clown horror show on Wednesday.

Mueller was not just the Democratic Party's last hope, he was their identity. He was the anti-Trump. Well, he no longer is, he is not fit to play that role anymore. And there is nobody to take it over who is not going to be highly contested by at least some parts of the party. In other words: it's falling apart.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a natural process, parties change as conditions do and if they don't do it fast enough they disappear. Look at the candidates the Dems have. Can anyone imagine the party, post-Mueller, uniting behind Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris? And then for one of them to beat Donald Trump in 2020? I was just watching a little clip from Sean Hannity, doing what Trump did last week, which is going after the Squad. Who he said are anti-Israel socialists and, most importantly, the de facto leaders of the party, not Nancy Pelosi. That is a follow-up consequence of Mueller's tragic defeat, the right can now go on the chase. The Squad is the face of the Dems because Trump and Hannity have made them that.

The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see. The Dems have no Trump. They do have a DNC that will stifle any candidate they don't like (Bernie!), though. Just think what they would have done if Trump had run as a Democrat (crazy, but not that crazy).

The UK's issues are remarkably similar to those of the US. Only, in their case, the socialists have already taken over the left-wing party (if you can call the Dems left-wing). This has led to absolute stagnation. Tony Blair had moved Labour so far to the right (which he and his Blairites call center, because it sounds so much better), that injecting Jeremy Corbyn as leader was just too fast and furious.

So they labeled Corbyn an anti-semite, the most successful and equally empty smear campaign since Julian Assange was called a rapist. Corbyn never adequately responded, so he couldn't profile himself and now the Blairites are again calling on him to leave. Oh, and he never gave a direct answer to the question of Brexit yes or no either. Pity. Corbyn's support among the people is massive, but not in the party.

Which is why it's now up to Boris Johnson to 'deliver the will of the people'. And apparently the first thing the people want is 20,000 more policemen. Which were fired by the very party he at the time represented first as first mayor of London and then foreign minister, for goodness sake. His very own Tories closed 600 police stations since 2010 and will have to re-open many now.

Some survey must have told him it polled well. Just like polling was an essential part of pushing through Brexit. There's a very revealing TV movie that came out 6 months ago called Brexit: The Uncivil War, that makes this very clear. The extent to which campaigns these days rely on data gathering and voter targeting will take a while yet to be understood, but they're a future that is already here. Wikipedia in its description of the film puts it quite well:

After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises Cummings full control.

The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority.

[..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ, who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are inclined to vote to leave.

[..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them.

Dominic Cummings, played in the movie by Benedict Cumberbatch, is an independent political adviser who belongs to no party. But guess what? He was the first adviser Boris Johnson hired after his nomination Wednesday. Cummings didn't want Nigel Farage as the face of Brexit, because he polled poorly. He wanted Boris, because his numbers were better. Not because he didn't think Boris was a bumbling fool, he did.

And now Cummings is back to finish the job. Far as I can see, that can only mean one thing: elections, and soon (it's what Cummings does). A no-deal Brexit was voted down, in the same Parliament Boris Johnson now faces, 3 times, or was it 4? There is going to be a lot of opposition. Boris wants Brexit on October 31, and has practically bet his career on it. But there is going to be a lot of opposition.

He can't have elections before September, because of the summer recess. So perhaps end of September?! But he has Dominic Cummings and his "algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools" . Without which Brexit would never have been voted in. So if you don't want Brexit, you better come prepared.

Cummings and his techies weren't -just- sending out mass mails or that kind of stuff. That's already arcane. They were sending targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly?

Already thought before it all happened that it was funny that Boris Johnson's ascension and Robert Mueller's downfall were scheduled for the same day. There must be a pattern somewhere.

You can find the movie at HBO or Channel 4, I'm sure. Try this link for Channel 4. Seeing that movie, and thinking about the implications of the technology, the whole notion of Russian meddling becomes arcane as well. We just have no idea.


RoyalDraco , 1 minute ago link

The Demoncrats have one candidate who could beat Trump, namely Tulsi Gabbard. I disagree with her economics and her 2nd amendment stance, but enough Chump voters who based their vote on his promise to stop the continuous war on everyone, would switch to Tulsi if she were nominated, particularly if the Chump plays his Zio directive and starts a war with Iran which will not go well for anybody. But Tulsi will never have a fair shot at the nominations as the MIC Google has demon-strated in her law suit. **** the election. The people and their opinions are not a factor. **** the left right hatred division while the Owners just laugh from the shadows at us for being so easily manipulated.

freedommusic , 3 minutes ago link

The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see.

Can criminals survive a functioning DOJ working under the Law?

Klassenfeind , 4 minutes ago link

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Another ***, peddling the best FOREIGN AGENT Israel ever had in the White House!

Sp4Ce F@rCe , 16 minutes ago link

'Pied Piper' anyone?

In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning.

Trump is using Hillary's Pied Piper strategy against AoC and the Squid.

Elevate the radical leftists...they'll be seen as the face of the Democrat party...then 2020 is a sure Trump win.

Not that I care...I never consented to being governed by anyone.

It does make for good entertainment, however.

Automatic Choke , 21 minutes ago link

For decades, the Democratic party has been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of liberals and labor -- two groups with nothing in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.

For decades, the Republican party has also been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of religious fundamentalists and fiscal conservatives -- two groups with nothing in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.

In European politics, they call a shovel a shovel and work by coalition government. You have smaller parties which actually represent interest groups, although none are large enough for power themselves. They form and break coalitions -- some long lasting, some flittering around from election to election -- in order to form a majority ad hoc. It isn't a bad system, and the voters don't have to hold their noses so much at the polls.

(edit: all this squabbling between "the squad" and the Pelosi leadership makes much more sense when viewed as friction between the labor and liberal halves of the dems.)

[Jul 26, 2019] Of Two Minds - Once Prosperity Falters, the Legitimacy of the Status Quo Evaporates

Jul 26, 2019 | www.oftwominds.com

https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2344&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oftwominds.com%2Fblog.html

https://eus.rubiconproject.com/usync.html

https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html

Once "Prosperity" Falters, the Legitimacy of the Status Quo Evaporates

July 26, 2019

All we're doing is waiting for the fake "prosperity" to crumble, and the resulting loss of credibility and legitimacy will follow like night follows day.

The citizenry of corrupt regimes ruled by self-serving elites tolerate this oppressive misrule for one reason and only one reason: increasing prosperity, which we can define as continual improvement in material well-being and financial security.

The legitimacy of every corrupt regime ruled by self-serving elites hangs on this single thread: once prosperity fades, the legitimacy of the regime evaporates, as the citizenry have no reason to tolerate their rapacious, predatory overlords.

A broken, unfair system will be tolerated as long as every participant feels they're getting a few shreds of improvement. This is why there is such an enormous push of propaganda touting "growth"; if the citizenry can be conned into believing that their deteriorating well-being and security are actually "prosperity," then they will continue to grant the status quo some measure of credibility and legitimacy.

When the gap between the propaganda and reality widens to the breaking point, the regime loses its credibility and legitimacy. This manifests in a number of ways:

1. Nobody believes anything the state or its agencies reports as "fact": since it misreported economic well-being and security to benefit the few at the expense of the many, why believe anything official?

2. Increased lawlessness: since the Ruling Elites get away with virtually everything, why we should we obey the laws?

3. Opting out: rather than become a target for the state's oppressive organs of security , the safer path is to opt out : quit supporting a parasitic and predatory Status Quo of corporations and the state with your labor, slip into the shadows of the economy, avoid debt like the plague, get by on a fraction of your former income.

4. Breakdown of Status Quo political parties: since all parties are bands of self-serving thieves, what's the point of even nominal membership?

5. Increasing reliance on anti-depression and anti-anxiety medications, more self-medication/drug use, and other manifestations of social stress and breakdown.

6. Those who can move away from crumbling high-tax cities, essentially giving up civic hope for fair, affordable solutions to rising inequality and social disorder.

7. Increasing defaults and bankruptcies as households and enterprises no longer see any other way out.

8. Increasing mockery of financial/corporate media parroting the propaganda that "prosperity" is real and rising-- S&P 500 hits 3,000, we're all getting better in every way, every day, etc.

Truth is the most essential form of capital, and once it has been squandered to serve insiders, vested interests and Ruling Elites, the nation is morally, spiritually, politically and financially bankrupt. All we're doing is waiting for the fake "prosperity" to crumble, and the resulting loss of credibility and legitimacy will follow like night follows day.

[Jul 26, 2019] Tucker What should happen to those who lied about Russian collusion

Highly recommended!
Jul 26, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Joe DeHaan , 6 hours ago

They should be charged with treason ! Investigation under false pretenses , ILLEGAL ! Contempt, obstruction ! Pick one !

John Roberts , 6 hours ago (edited)

They should be charged with sedition and hung in the capital square. BAN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Gary V , 6 hours ago

What a joke... MULLER appeared SENILE and incompetent led by Dems & their lawyers.

Troy Vincent , 2 hours ago

Exactly Tucker. Serious accountability is what we need for these maliciously lying government officials.

hp , 5 hours ago

Tucker is the last hope for main stream media. Keep up the good work.


Paul Haggar , 5 hours ago

Maybe Putin should get a twitter account haha...... I wonder how he likes the sanctions Pres Trump has placed on Russia

cardsblues219 , 7 hours ago

Schiff has to be charged with treason.

F16 Pilot 4 TRUMP , 4 hours ago (edited)

Tucker you forgot to mention the millions of Iraqs that got killed in the Gulf war over wmds..

Stephan Desy , 5 hours ago

I agree wholeheartedly with Tucker Carlson...This whole stupid Russia hysteria propagated by most of the media made me, an old timer liberal, agree with Tucker. Well played Democratic Party... well played.

G7Batten Batten , 2 hours ago

Exact on the spot as so often. Absolutely nothing will change unless the guilty are punished. May God continue to protect and guide you Tucker.

Zlatko Sich , 7 hours ago

Prison time, for Lying when you work for government. Same for journalists and television(lying and fake news ). This is a solution.

Ryan Mangrum , 43 minutes ago

It was a coup attempt. They should be charged with sedition and/or treason.

Guitarzan , 6 hours ago

Tucker's question about what should happen to the people who attempted to reverse the will of the American people? The answer is very straightforward. Those found guilty of sedition and treason should by law hanged by the neck until dead. This might discourage further efforts to undermine the will of the American people.

Frank Perez , 2 hours ago

They should go to jail, let's make an example of them. They wasted millions of the American tax money on a witch hunt...

[Jul 26, 2019] Rep. Gohmert on his fiery exchange with Mueller - YouTube

Youtube video from Tucker show...
Looks like Mueller was a figurehead and Weismann or somebody else was the driving force behind the report. Some legal experts now hope that DOJ will open inqury about who really wrote Mueller report. Mueller was not aware about basic facts in his report. Compare with Joe diGenova The public got to see Mueller's incompetence - YouTube
Jul 26, 2019 | www.youtube.com

A , 1 day ago

Mueller looks like a pawn in all of this. Probably was or still is afraid for his life.

christopher jones , 1 day ago

Mueller was the face used for the report, big-name, highly promoted, etc. In short, the tail doesn`t wag the doggy. He did as he was told, END.

C_Dragon0911 , 1 day ago

"Mueller - Can you repeat the question?" 😂🤣😂

john stoddard , 1 day ago

$30 MILLION 17 LAWYERS THREE YEARS AN NO COLLUSION BUT LOTS OF DELUSION

Rohan Sospirian , 1 day ago

Weissman is probably in a hotel bar in the Caymans, laughing at Old Man Mueller and hitting on the waitress.

1 2 , 1 day ago

Mueller obviously didn't write the report. He ruined his reputation in a few hrs. Hope it was worth it Mr. Mueller.

Wave Dancer , 1 day ago

Mueller is NO hero. He's a corrupt, coward, a traitor to the state, bought by the ideological DEM Globalists. A shame to the USA. He should end in jail!!

[Jul 24, 2019] Elizabeth Warren Seeks to Cut Private Equity Down to Size

Highly recommended!
That bill alone makes Warren a viable candidate again, despite all her previous blunders. She is a courageous woman, that Warren. And she might wipe the floor with the completely subservant to Israel lobby Trump. Who betrayed his electorate in all major promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Not only would Warren's legislation prohibit some of the most destructive private equity activities, but it would end their ability to act as traditional asset managers, taking fees and incurring close to no risk if their investments go belly up. The bill takes the explicit and radical view that: ..."
"... Private funds should have a stake in the outcome of their investments, enjoying returns if those investments are successful but ab-1sorbing losses if those investments fail. ..."
"... Critics will say that Warren's bill has no chance of passing, which is currently true but misses the point. ..."
"... firms would share responsibility for the liabilities of companies under their control, including debt, legal judgments, and pension obligations to "better align the incentives of private equity firms and the companies they own." The bill, if enacted, would end the tax subsidy for excessive leverage and closes the carried interest loophole. ..."
"... The bill also seeks to ban dividends to investors for two years after a firm is acquired. Worker pay would be prioritized in the bankruptcy process, with guidelines intended to ensure affected employees are more likely to receive severance pay and pensions. It would also clarify gift cards are consumer deposits, ensuring their priority in bankruptcy proceedings. If enacted, private equity managers will be required to disclose fees, returns, and political expenditures. ..."
"... This is a bold set of proposals that targets abuses that hurt workers and investors. Most readers may not appreciate the significance of the two-year restriction on dividends. One return-goosing strategy that often leaves companies crippled or bankrupt in its wake is the "dividend recap" in which the acquired company takes on yet more debt for the purpose of paying a special dividend to its investors. Another strategy that Appelbaum and Batt have discussed at length is the "op co/prop co." Here the new owners take real estate owned by the company, sell it to a new entity with the former owner leasing it. The leases are typically set high so as to allow for the "prop co" to be sold at a richer price. This strategy is often a direct contributor to the death of businesses, since ones that own their real estate usually do so because they are in cyclical industries, and not having lease payments enables the to ride out bad times. The proceeds of sale of the real estate is usually dividended out to the investors, hence the dividend restriction would also pour cold water on this approach. ..."
"... However, there is precedent in private equity for recognizing joint and several liability of an investment fund for the obligations of its portfolio companies. In a case that winded its way through the federal courts until last year ( Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund ), the federal court held that Sun Capital Partners III was liable under ERISA, the federal pension law, for the unfunded pension obligations of Scott Brass, a portfolio company of that fund. The court's key finding was that Sun Capital played an active management role in Scott Brass and that its claim of passive investor status therefore should not be respected. ..."
"... Needless to say, private equity firms have worked hard to minimize their exposure to the Sun Capital decision, for example by avoiding purchasing companies with defined benefit pension plans. The Warren bill, however, is so broad in the sweep of liability it imposes that PE firms would be unlikely to be able to structure around it. It is hard to imagine the investors in private equity funds accepting liability for what could be enormous sums of unfunded pension liabilities ultimately flowing onto them. Either they would have to set up shell companies to fund their PE investments that could absorb the potential liability, or they would have to give up on the asset class. Either way, it would mean big changes to the industry and potentially a major contraction of it. ..."
"... I am surprised that Warren sought to make private equity funds responsible for the portfolio company debts by "joint and several liability". You can get to economically pretty much the same end by requiring the general partner and potentially also key employees to guarantee the debt and by preventing them from assigning or buying insurance to protect the guarantor from being liable. There is ample precedent for that for entrepreneurs. Small business corporate credit cards and nearly all small business loans require a personal guarantee. ..."
"... Warren's bill also has strong pro-investor provisions. It takes on the biggest feature of the ongoing investor scamming, which is the failure of PE managers to disclose to the investors all of the fees they receive from portfolio companies. The solution proposed by the bill to this problem is exceedingly straightforward, basically proclaiming, "Oh yeah, now you will have to disclose that." The bill also abolishes the ability of private equity managers to claim long term capital gains treatment on the 20 percent of fund profits that they receive, which is unrelated to the return on any capital that the private equity managers may happen to invest in a fund. ..."
"... We need a reparations movement for all those workers harmed by private equity. Seriously. ..."
"... It's so nice to see someone taking steps to protect the rights and compensation of the people actually doing the work at the companies and putting their interests first in case of bankruptcy. That those who worked hardest to make the company succeed were somehow the ones who took it in the shorts the worst has always struck me as a glaring inequity bordering on cruelty. ..."
Jul 23, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Elizabeth Warren's Stop Wall Street Looting Act , which is co-sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal, seeks to fundamentally alter the way private equity firms operate. While the likely impetus for Warren's bill was the spate of private-equity-induced retail bankruptcies, with Toys 'R' Us particularly prominent, the bill addresses all the areas targeted by critics of private equity: how it hurts workers and investors and short-changes the tax man, thus burdening taxpayers generally.

... ... ...

[Jul 23, 2019] Silicon Valley guints first enabled protest against neoliberalism includiong right wing populasm but now are trying to supress it

Jul 23, 2019 | www.theguardian.com

TashiDelek , 24 Jan 2019 13:41

Tech platforms circumvented the MSM and allowed different voices to be heard. Policing these platforms are still currently beyond the capabilities of tech companies. Content censorship is a main focus of AI right now. You can expect an impersonal, Stalinist PC police in every platform very soon.
Gegenbeispiel -> MoBro999 , 23 Jan 2019 09:05
Narratives themselves are the problem.

We need to be looking at the current situation. History (almost entirely an extremely unpleasant horror show) is only relevant in that we have to deal with its mostly negative relics.

UpVoteThis -> DasInternaut , 23 Jan 2019 08:32
Your way of looking at things assumes that everybody has convergent interests. The populists argument is that those smart guys in power are only looking after their own interests and not everybody else's.
daWOID -> Kapone78 , 23 Jan 2019 02:23
Fighting ignorance with ignorance? Not a cool move, Comrade.

"[Marx] had few qualms about colonialism as many leftists in the 19th century."
1] Read Marx's stuff on India and Ireland and American Slavery.

2] "Marx didn't say much about culture."
Intro to the Grundrisse? Feuerbach Theses? German Ideology? All of what's been dismissed as the "Humanist" Marx, meaning almost everything written before Capital?

3] " it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony with both hands."
Read up. Here's for starters:

Which brings me to the gist:
"Cultural Marxism," also known as Western Marxism, non-Leninist Marxism, etc. etc. Stuff they can't accuse of being in collusion with Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, etc. Ranging from late Engels to Adorno to Benjamin to Sartre and beyond.

""Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively."
About as much as you have, pal.

999Jasper , 23 Jan 2019 01:55

This is a paradox that clever progressives ought to be able to exploit, if only by asking non-American rightwing populists to explain their great love for an industry that even Steve Bannon considers to be "evil".

It doesn't seem to have occurred to the author that the American populist right, not the European populist right, has the weaker argument, when it comes to Silicon Valley.

I think Big Tech ought to pay higher taxes (and I vehemently oppose the scandalous subsidies and tax breaks they receive), but I think that's the case with all vastly wealthy corporate interests, including such sectors as finance, property, bio-pharma, and energy.

I'm not much of a fan of Facebook, but in general my life's loads more convenient and affordable because of the likes of Google, Netflix, Amazon, Uber and Airbnb. Plus, you know, they seem to piss off Trump and Bannon. So that's a plus.

Kapone78 , 23 Jan 2019 00:46
As a Marxist, I would like someone to explain to me the meaning of the expression "cultural Marxism".

It's cool to be an intellectual onanist or an outright bell-end (like Bolsonaro's minister who said that global warming was a Marxist plot), but words have meanings and it would be nice to use words carefully.

The bloody irony of "cultural Marxism" is that even though Marx didn't say much about culture, LGBTQ(put another letter here) or minorities (he had few qualms about colonialism as many leftists in the 19th century), it is actually right-wingers who have used Gramsci's concept of Cultural Hegemony with both hands.

Bannon, Kristol and many other have read him extensively and have the cheek to criticise others for promoting "cultural Marxism", which is a figment of their imagination.

Cultural Marxism is the Godwin point of intellectual discourse.

StephenO , 23 Jan 2019 00:28

The American wing of the movement sees big tech as an attractive target of attack....

One of those statements that indicates how deep you are wandering in the woods. There is an onslaught of EU countries and EU councils that have sued big tech in the US. The investigations don't stop and the threats don't stop.

In 2018, the EU hit Google with a fine of $5 billion in an antitrust verdict with respect to the Android operating system. In 2017, the EU hit Google with a $2.7 billion judgement with respect to displaying advertisements.

That is just the recent material with respect to Google.

The biggest pressure faced by Facebook (again) comes from the left. The pressures over data, the race to take-down opposing viewpoints and the fines for non-compliance. Facebook has been forced by the left to hire so many "fact-checkers" that it has affected its profitability. (Recent discoveries reveal that Mark Zuckerberg lied to Congress -- a felony offense.)

... as bashing it helps to delegitimize the legacy of Obama and Clinton, seen as its primary enablers.

The Clinton's have amassed a remarkable trail of felony violations in many areas. Continued pressure against the swamp is slowly removing their layers of protection. Documents and evidence are also appearing that implicates Obama and some advisers in various illegal activities in 2016 with respect to the FBI and DOJ.

That process continues to move forward, irregardless of the House.

cyberclark , 22 Jan 2019 19:29
The Right Wing Christian parties have found the Immigrant hot button with which to field their arguments. Loosely knitted with finance to hide their real purpose, they are finding success. I say, unmask them for their actual fears propelled by underlying bigotry and fear.
iruka , 22 Jan 2019 16:51

"Big tech monsters like Google and Facebook have become nothing less than incubators for far-left liberal ideologies and are doing everything they can to eradicate conservative ideas and their proponents from the internet."

If only it were true.

No fan of Mussolini, but he did oversee the eradication of malaria in Italy.

And I love free speech, but it's hard to justify the proposition that "conservative ideas" really constitute a set of ideas, a coherent perspective. They're more accurately understood as a set of noises, devoid of coherent meaning, made while harming oneself and others.... They're just more verbose versions of, say, the inarticulate noises made by a headmaster while whipping a young child for some fabricated misdemeanour. Noises the child will learn to make while punishing others......

StephenO , 22 Jan 2019 16:06

But there's one issue on which there's no agreement between American rightwing populists and their peers in the rest of the world: what to make of Silicon Valley. On the one hand, its services and platforms have been a boon to the populists everywhere...

Followed by more strawmen and generalized incoherence. In a recent speech, Macron started by reminding his audience of Marie-Antoinette and King Louis XVI. The later was decapitated because of a poor economic performance and wide-spread discontent.

And in 1517, the theologian Martin Luther nailed Thesis 86 to a church door and started the Protestant Reformation.

In Morozov's scope of history, humanity has never experienced a social eruption, revolution, or change of direction until Silicon Valley. That is not surprising since the progressive left's extent of history begins around 1932.

Also, the author's knowledge of Silicon Valley's history is heavily flawed with biases and fraudulent presentations.

Peter Gray -> Gegenbeispiel , 22 Jan 2019 15:53
Tech isn't new anymore. Silicon Valley is almost 40 years old in terms of its social impact. That's equivalent to the 1960s for the US car industry, which is about the time that the social and political negatives of car ownership began to manifest in public debate. The novelty of big tech has begun wearing off as its early benefits fade, and the costs to society linger. It's the rest of the world that is lagging behind the USA in terms of disillusionment
Peter Gray -> 1Eloise , 22 Jan 2019 15:48
The far left and the far right have a point about tech. Silicon Valley has always had lamentable political tendencies: a love of both neoliberalism, a penchance for "Singaporean" authoritarianism, and an ungainly mix of personal hubris and pseudomessianic claptrap. In the US big tech is guilty of overselling itself to the public while just proving to be little better at corporate citizenship than oil companies.
Layng1 , 22 Jan 2019 11:52
The ambition and business method of all social media is to create a condition of extreme excitability, reactiveness and strong engagement by users so as to maximize participation and thereby to drive revenue streams, whether these are advertising or product sales or data acquisition for future commercial exploitation.

Accordingly, Big Tech relies on the hyper provocation and ultra engagement of the "2 minutes hate" as it is described by some.

It's like throwing out morsels of raw meat to a group of crocodiles or alligators and watching the feeding frenzy.

The commercial model of Big Tech demands the strong drivers of intense hate, fear, envy and even hostility.

Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our critical faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviours for the advantage of Big Tech.

Politically correct and worthy speech will ertainly not optimize the revenues. You need the fulminating hate merchants, the graders, the nasties and the trolls. That gets other users highly exercised and strongly engaged.

I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the punters enraged and engaged.

Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.

The commercial objective is to get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction to the trigger bells of hate, discrimination, fear of migrants, provocation over identity issues, fear of being swamped, loss if he familiar and the rise tinted but deceptive lens of nostalgia for a wholly fictitious imagined past.

Layng1 -> irishmaninholland , 22 Jan 2019 11:33
Gd point. The ambition of all social media is to create a condition of extreme excitability, reactive ness and engagement so as to maximize participation and thereby to drive revenue streams.

Excellent and apposite reference to Orwell in this context.

Big Tech relies on the hyper privication and engagement of the "2 minutes hate" as you aptly describe it.

It's like throwing out morsels ofvraw meet to a group of crocodiles or alligators and watching the feeding frenzy.

The commercial model of Big Tech demands the drivers of hate, fear, envy and even hostility. Negative emotions, acting on the more primitive parts of the brain, subvert our critical faculties and drive our impulsive and destructive behaviors.

Politically correct and worthy speech will not optimize the revenues.

I know of few social media based outlets which cynically and manipulatively use a few social provocateurs to throw out incendiary and provocative hate speech so as to get the punters engaged.

Alt-right and hard right sells. Hate speech stimulates.

Get the online dogs salivating out of a Pavlovian reaction to the trigger bells.

MatthewHenson -> bradgate , 22 Jan 2019 09:49
And as we have seen with Facebook's monthly scandals they are not going to behave better unless they are forced to. It would be good to have governments that might help: right now that's the EU alone, China being a special case.
jonniestewpot -> edmundberk , 22 Jan 2019 09:46

Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore

Of course it is though that was simply a vehicle to uplift the whole of society making it egalitarian. Silicon Valley can only be implicated as left wing as communism for the rich. In no respect are they looking for equality quite the reverse their celebrated ideal is the emancipation of the individual to be great wealth creators, if they have a social conscience their beneficence will be to become philanthropists creating another legacy from their wealth.

You can see why European fascist like them they were always happy to work with capitalists in the past. It seems their US counterparts are behind the curve on that.

Layng1 , 22 Jan 2019 08:22
Big Tech preserves the surface veneer of democracy whilst controlling the prejudices and direction of the electorates.

Big Tech assimilates us into a hive mind. It is not yet absolute but we are well on the way to being controlled by those who use Big Tech to direct us.

Only the far right libertarian billionaires can afford to use Big Tech to impose their wishes.

Democracy is being replaced by a toxic mix of plutocracy, technocracy and a mobbing mass directed like a murmurstion of starlings.

Read Shoshana Zuboff's book, "Surveillance Capitalism" for an insight.

I consume social media and technology; therefore I am.

MoBro999 -> Tiny Toy , 22 Jan 2019 08:08
"The rhetoric of hatred and divisiveness only has one logical conclusion, which is ultimately to pit every individual against every other individual. The order in which they do so is not some kind of universal, it's a complex product of cultural fears and how they can be exploited."

But ironically the obsession with "identity politics" the erasure of wider communities in favour of further and further fragmentation- seen as "progressive", is helping to deliver the same agenda. is it not? It concentrates on what makes us different, not what makes us similar.

Smolker -> PeppermintSeal , 22 Jan 2019 07:54

No, they've provided a platform for almost anyone to encourage and amplify their message, including far-left, far-right, people looking for missing cats etc.

I made this point in my original post.

You seem to be agreeing with me for the sake of disagreement, as a mechanism to get your point across, in the process omitting and skewing the points I made.

You subtly edited one of my statements to omit the term capital. My full sentence was as below:

We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media to encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.

The point here is that capital has a tremedous advantage over smaller and grass roots movements because it can employ companies such as Cambridge Analytica and Aggregate IQ to mobilise opinion.*

In this arena, as in every arena, money helps people seize and bolster power. The assertion that left and right can exert the same influence in this domain is a false equivalence.

Social media isn't a channel through which all views can flow equally. Your claim to this effect is either disingenuous or naive.

* They're the same company, but that's another discussion.

Gegenbeispiel , 22 Jan 2019 07:28
Here's a sound analysis of the global economy for you, Zhenya: capitalism is an unrecoverable failure. Wreck it, scrap it, replace it by egalitarian cybernetically centrally-planned low-competition, moderated-consumption leisure-oriented socialism with a private sector limited to 30% of GDP or less.
partoftheproblem , 22 Jan 2019 07:08
One thing that appears to be missing from this is the recent trend in rightwing populists being kicked off online payment processes services & fund raising tools, not to mention twitter and similar social media platforms. It's easy enough to understand the

Alex Jones/Infowars being banned from paypal being one such example, another interesting one is, again, paypal and them banning the Proud Boys , the amusing part is they banned Antifa groups as well for violating the same terms of service.

Throw in social media sites "Purging political discussions" and it's easy to see how there's going to be hate from populists. Social media has become a vital tool of political discussion, but it's not... yet stable, the platform providers are reactionary and inconsistent in their approach to sorting problems.

PenneArrabiata -> callaspodeaspode , 22 Jan 2019 07:04
I think this can be explained by the American propensity to conflate "conservatism" with "market liberalism". It's a sleight of hand that really confuses some people.
edmundberk -> ID1174659 , 22 Jan 2019 07:02
Left wing is not really to do with labour politics anymore, if it ever was. Arguably it was only ever a useful grievance to be harnessed that has long been superseded. Harnessed to the goal of remaking mankind to the favoured plan of upper middle class utopians. I think that at bottom that is what leftism is in its essence.
callaspodeaspode , 22 Jan 2019 07:00
The idea that these most ludicrously successful and world-bestriding capitalist enterprises are founded and staffed by Marxists, or folks who are pretty much indistinguishable from Marxists, would, one might think, be something that would engender a long and thoughtful period of reflectio
Gary Cross -> expatinscandinavia , 22 Jan 2019 06:53
Big tech are a classic example of those who are "socially liberal but fiscally conservative". In other words, are happy to have compassion and a conscience...as long as it doesn't cost them anything.
ValuedCustomer -> Smolker , 22 Jan 2019 06:52
The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.

Capital has successfully devised an ersatz, designedly harmless (to them) "left" and used its class/cultural power to squash and demonise the real thing.

How do we begin to fight back? Can we fight back?

Sure. The bourgeoisie's exploitation of our common decency has pretty much exhausted itself. It's essential that new left currents are exclusively proletarian however.

[Jul 23, 2019] Silicon Valley moguls, their social platforms, and far right nationalist protest movements against neoliberalism

Jul 23, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

Smolker -> expatinscandinavia , 22 Jan 2019 06:50

I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are generally made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're based in California and are made up of relatively young college graduates.

This is fundamentally untrue.

At best these people have appropriated socially liberal attitudes because it suits their capitalist instincts.

There's a market for social liberalism. Tech giants and their owners have branded aspects of their companies accordingly.

If the money flows in the other direction, these same companies and owners will profit from this stream without compunction. Increasingly that's where the money streams from.

These people are capital. Their ethics stretch no further than their bottom line.

Zuckerberg et al. sell notions of "hacking the system" only to service a profit imperative. Indeed, they've "hacked" publishing laws to dodge accountability.

The last thing they are is left wing.

PenneArrabiata , 22 Jan 2019 06:49
I don't think this article is very coherent.

Bannon, while condemning Silicon Valley, is one of the main proponents of the use of its platforms in propaganda. Indeed, it was central to the 2016 election of Trump and the campaigns he has overseen in Europe.

What he describes as "evil" are the utopian tech barons, as they are an easy target for popular hate. This is, of course, rank hypocrisy - as he and his "pro-business" allies are neither calling for them to be taxed nor brought down to size, and they are quite happy to use their services.

Therefore, I don't think there is a divide between the US far right or their offshoots around the world. The paradox at the centre of all these movements is that they are both for and against powerful elites, when it suits them.

dsdsdsdsds -> DoctorWibble , 22 Jan 2019 06:48
The arab spring was initially viewed by many as an anti US uprising using the freedom of the internet.
When it didnt deliver honey and unicorns, by many it was retrospectively recast as a US coup using a US corporation controlled by zionists.
jon9521 -> dsdsdsdsds , 22 Jan 2019 06:41
Its not the medium it is the ownership and the bias behind it. TV media today is left wing biased not just in UK but US and other western countries too. Similarly, we have to look at the ownership of the big internet companies and their bias today also.
ID1174659 -> expatinscandinavia , 22 Jan 2019 06:41
If you have a questionable attitude to tax you are NOT left wing. More Libertarian.
bradgate , 22 Jan 2019 06:40
The tech giants don't care about 'left' or 'right', 'conservative' or 'progressive'. They care about money and they care about enriching their senior executives and shareholders.
DoctorWibble , 22 Jan 2019 06:37
It wasn't that long ago that progressives bubbled over with excitement at the role played by Twitter and Facebook in the Arab Spring. And of course no profession has embraced Twitter more enthusiastically than journalists. If that was removed half our newspapers would be blank pages. Ambivalence about the big social media platforms is not unique to populists. If your ideas get traction on it you like it. If your opponents ideas get traction you don't. Not entirely unlike traditional media in this respect.
Smolker , 22 Jan 2019 06:34
The advent of social media produced an upswell of academic papers and arguments.

As the internet became a growing cultural and political tool, the framing question for much academic debate was as follows:

Will "new media" democratise our culture and politics, or be co-opted by established actors to bolster their hegemonic status.

The assumption among academics was that, should new media democratise our politics it would, naturally, advantage the left. The people would throw off their shackles and reclaim authority from capital. The wave would be egalitarian rather than divisive.

Post-Brexit and Trump, this assumption has been exposed as deeply flawed.

While Western politics has become increasingly polarised, the beneficiaries have been the increasingly hard to far right.

We're in a desperate situation where capital and tech giants have utilised social media to encourage, amplify and legitimise the very worst human impulses.

How do we begin to fight back? Can we fight back?

dsdsdsdsds , 22 Jan 2019 06:34
Isnt this just the modern equivalent of 1950s republicans complaining that new fangled TV makes JFK seem better looking and more likely to win elections? You cant uninvent TV or the internet.
Barack Obama was the pioneer of using social media to help win elections but there was zero outcry about it.
geniusofmozart -> Laurence Bury , 22 Jan 2019 06:32
Automation will likely eliminate all jobs eventually. The idea that it's a tool of the liberal centre to displace the "provincial periphery" is nonsense.
unclestinky , 22 Jan 2019 06:27

Steve Bannon called people leading "evil" Silicon Valley "complete narcissists" and "sociopaths"

Now who else does that remind me of Steve?
Nada89 , 22 Jan 2019 06:23
2008 was the pivotal year that trust was lost in the banks, the political class and the media; all three have been fighting a rearguard action ever since.

The crash saw politicians use public money to bail out the banks while the media were complicit in subverting this reality, blaming certain groups for causing the melt down (such as the poor, the feckless, migrants, etc).

In the meantime things have become much worse guaranteeing that the next crash (which is just round the corner) will be far worse than 2008 because borrowing has reached such stratospheric proportions, while none of the root causes of 2008 have been addressed - the likes of the Yellow Vests in France are probably a taste of what is to come.

Most of the arguments around the digital media are driven by a desire to surpress the nature of previous and coming economic catastrophes in my opinion typified by some of the groups who are trying to exploit the lack of honesty about why living conditions are under threat in places like Spain, Greece and the North of England.

DasInternaut , 22 Jan 2019 06:21
So outside of the US, populist see social media as a way out of some sort dictatorship by people smarter than themselves? That's just perverse. I want the damned country to be run by people who are smarter than I am. I hope this will actually happen one day.
Laurence Bury , 22 Jan 2019 06:19
I tend to think that the Atlanticists are right here - Big Tech represents the liberal centre who would happily replace the provincial periphery with robots for cultural as well as economic reasons.
In Continental Europe, the new populism is nascent and so as we saw with the leader-less Gilets jaunes, folk are still excited about the self-organisation potential of the Net.
expatinscandinavia , 22 Jan 2019 06:12
I don't think either 'side' is necessarily wrong here. The social media giants are generally made up of left-leaning people; not necessarily surprising given that they're based in California and are made up of relatively young college graduates. And yes, they are getting filthy rich off the backs of some questionable policies and, in some instances, questionable approaches to taxation.

For all the faults of the left and right populists, and there are many, I think they are right in thinking that the big tech companies are no angels.

[Jul 21, 2019] Merchants of Death business uber alles" as the new interpretation of "Drain the Swamp" election time slogan by Trump administration

"Drain the swamp" now means good times for Raytheon.
Jul 21, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

rwe2late , 1 hour ago link

Draining the swamp means hiring the lobbyists

- Orwell

...err, I meant Trump.

War is Peace

- well, now that's Orwell

(and many others in government and elsewhere)

Klassenfeind , 2 hours ago link

The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.

Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?

Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton, Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?

[Jul 20, 2019] Warren's Weaknesses

Jul 20, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Take yer pick. These and more are linked all over the innertubes and growing in number and breath of issues everyday:

Why the Differences Between Sanders and Warren Matter https://jacobinmag.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-socialism...

That Time Warren Cheered Trump. Well, this was disappointing... Elizabeth Warren stands up and applauds Trump's promise that "America will never be a socialist country." https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=416898935744430

Elizabeth Warren hates money in politics, keeps taking campaign donations from rich lobbyists and corporate executives https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elizabeth-warren-hates-money-...

Elizabeth Warren ripped Joe Biden's big Philly fund-raiser. Last year, she did an event with some of the same rich donors. https://www.inquirer.com/news/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-presidential-fu...

Leftover PAC money funneled into Warren's campaign https://www.gloucestertimes.com/election/leftover-pac-money-funneled-int...

Elizabeth Warren's 'big money' rejection doesn't apply to general https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/26/elizabeth-warrens-big-m...

Elizabeth Warren's Campaign Turned To A Big Donor To Pay For The DNC Voter Database, Despite Her Fundraising Pledge https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-fundrai...

Warren has a plan for Wall Street -- and Wall Street isn't panicking https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-e...

Why Wall Street prefers Warren to Sanders https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2019/07/18/why-wall-s...

Elizabeth Warren on Bernie Sanders: "He's a socialist, and I believe in markets." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-bernie-...

Elizabeth Warren decided to specifically stand up and applaud Trump when he said "America will never be a socialist country." https://twitter.com/HammerMtPress/status/1094369068063358976 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6B_MYpByUs&feature=youtu.be&t=3753

snoopydawg on Fri, 07/19/2019 - 5:06pm

[Jul 20, 2019] I want so much to sic Tulsi on creepy, Tio Joe, accomplice of banksters and credit card companies and also of the serial drone murderer.

Jul 20, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

Add his violations of personal space of women and children and he's a perfect candidate for a RICO prosecution, not POTUS.

Oh, well, Warren's on deck; and, if she goes down (no pun intended), there are the unsweet sixteen or so more. Anybody but Bernie, Tulsi or Gravel is no doubt the hope of the establishment, including the PTB of the Democratic Party.

Is Bernie perfect? God, no. None of them are, including Tulsi. Are Bernie and Tulsi evil? I don't think so. I think, at worst, Bernie is doing what he thinks he must in order to represent the people of Vermont and, if he can win, the people of the other forty-nine states, too.

I will not vote for anyone who I believe to be evil, but I will vote for Bernie or Tulsi in the Democratic primary. If nothing else, that will mean one more vote against the rest of the pack...

[Jul 19, 2019] The Epstein story discredits American justice, American media, reaches into the White House as well as represents the power of Israel over the governments of the US, Britain and Canada

Jul 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

curious man , Jul 19 2019 0:44 utc | 67

Epstein and the American Lie Machine
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/07/18/neo-epstein-and-the-american-lie-machine/

"The Epstein story touches everywhere, discredits American justice, American media, reaches into the White House, perhaps through numerous occupants and eventually settles in, a continuing mystery, still protected by a controlled media as it leads us to not one but 20 billionaires, a secret society tied to Epstein, that represents the power of Israel over the governments of the US, Britain and Canada."

"What is the real story? First of all, sex with children is nothing new in America. Child sex was the norm when the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620 and little changed other than it becoming a convenient tool to smear political opponents.

For two centuries, girls as young as 12 were regularly married off, sometimes forcibly, to men as old as 70 while others were sold into slavery to work in the mills or join the endless hordes serving in America's brothels."

[Jul 17, 2019] The Heirs Of MAGA -- Who Will Lead Historic American Nation After Trump by James Kirkpatrick

Jul 17, 2019 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Tucker Carlson

The real leader of the American Right today is not President Donald Trump. It's Tucker Carlson.

He's the best communicator in the country, he's talking about the most important issues, and he has a platform the Left hasn't been able to take away ( yet ). And they're getting desperate, even to the point of doxxing his home address and attacking his house .

Meanwhile, journalists/ enforcers have launched repeated campaigns to get him fired -- but he keeps dominating the ratings. [ Fox News' Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson enjoy ratings surge , by Lynn Elber, Washington Times, June 25, 2019]

Tucker recognizes Mexico is a hostile foreign power . He may have single-handedly saved Trump from ruining his Administration by launching a war on Iran . He also defended VDARE.com -- by name -- from Big Tech censorship, and warned about the danger to democracy from Big Tech . He's directly attacked the Koch Brothers and explained to his viewers " why the Republican Party often seems completely out of sync with its own voters ."

Tucker is preaching unwanted truths from within Conservatism Inc. I'm sure the top executives of the nonprofits clustered in Northern Virginia are furious he's on the air. Certainly, any lowly staffer at any Conservatism Inc. organization who raised his arguments would be fired.

Perhaps the most revealing exchange of the last year came a few months ago when Carlson spoke at the Turning Point USA conference [ Betrayal: American Conservatives and Capitalism , by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, January 28, 2019]. While Charlie Kirk desperately tried to convince the young crowd to support tax cuts for Big Tech, Carlson had them laughing at conservatism's "inflexible theories ."

He's speaking to those "Market Skeptical Republicans" who constitute a huge part of the GOP base . He's the voice of Americans who think there's nothing wrong with defending our civic national identity. That's the path forward for the American Right.

Tucker Carlson is sparking the intellectual renaissance the GOP desperately needs.

Could he run for office? Some Leftists are afraid he will -- Jeet Heer suggested he might be the "competent & effective Trump" that could come after the current president. But Carlson might be stronger where he is.

The pessimist in me says the journofa will get his scalp eventually over some stupid thing . The Beltway Right wants him gone, so it can get back to the same old slogans [ The Right Should Reject Tucker Carlson's Victimhood Populism , by ( of course!! ) David French, National Review, January 4, 2019].

Perhaps then Carlson should take his case to the people. [ Tucker Carlson for president , by Damon Linker, The Week, June 7, 2019] He's certainly a better spokesperson for Trump than Trump himself.

KenH , says: July 13, 2019 at 2:00 pm GMT

Tom Cotton wanted to "slash" legal immigration to 700K which is still at race replacement levels. We need a complete moratorium or the next best thing. Cotton is also as much a proponent of MIGA, if not more so, than Trump so an asterisk must be placed by his name.

If Trump were really a 4D chessmaster he should have asked Jeff Sessions to stay in the Senate, where he commanded the respect of both parties, to help shepherd through restrictionist immigration legislation. Then he should have appointed Kobach to DHS while he had momentum right after taking office. Instead we got Kirsten Nielsen who was a supporter of DACA.

Ted Cruz is capable of winning the Republican nomination but he doesn't have the appeal to win working class white Democrats as Trump did. His religious fundamentalism could annoy some independents.

incredibly citing smears from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This defamation is arguably what dissuaded Trump from appointing him.

And we voted for Trump to fight the corrupt establishment and entrenched (((special interests))). Not shrink from them.

I think Tucker Carlson could probably beat Trump in the Republican primaries. Tucker's problem is that he thinks if he can keep preaching race blindness and anti-identity politics every night and that it will eventually resonate with the Jewish led left. It won't and it never will and identity politics is here to stay so it's time whites start engaging in it. Tucker is also fine and dandy with the country becoming 90% non-white as long as those non-whites adhere to race blindness and the Constitution. I'd say the early returns tell us that they adhere to third world/non-white tribalism.

But at the end of the day none of these men will mount a racial defense of white Americans as it's either against their religion or their ideology. Whites are being attacked as a race so must be defended as a race and not simply as "Americans".

The demographic situation will be even worse in 2024, so unless the Republican candidate can secure at least 65-68% of the white vote (instead of the usual 59-60%) then this is all an exercise in futility. Then the discussion should turn to secession by any means necessary to secure a future for white people in North America. The (((status quo))) ensures white genocide.

[Jul 15, 2019] Elizabeth Warren Has Made Her Story America's Story

Highly recommended!
Jul 15, 2019 | www.thenation.com

Looks like Warren weakness is her inability to distinguish between key issues and periferal issues.

While her program is good and is the only one that calls for "structural change" (which is really needed as neoliberalism outlived its usefulness) it mixes apple and oranges. One thing is to stop neoliberal transformation of the society and the other is restitution for black slaves. In the latter case why not to Indians ?

I'd argue that Warren's newly tight and coherent story, in which her life's arc tracks the country's, is contributing to her rise, in part because it protects her against other stories -- the nasty ones told by her opponents, first, and then echoed by the media doubters influenced by her opponents. Her big national-stage debut came when she tangled with Barack Obama's administration over bank bailouts, then set up the powerhouse Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). But she was dismissed as too polarizing, even by some Democrats, and was passed over to run it. In 2012, Massachusetts's Scott Brown mocked Warren as "the Professor," a know-it-all Harvard schoolmarm, before she beat him to take his Senate seat. After that, Donald Trump began trashing her as "Pocahontas" in the wake of a controversy on the campaign trail about her mother's rumored Native American roots. And Warren scored an own goal with a video that announced she had "confirmed" her Native heritage with a DNA test, a claim that ignored the brutal history of blood-quantum requirements and genetic pseudoscience in the construction of race.

When she announced her presidential run this year, some national political reporters raised questions about her likability , finding new ways to compare her to Hillary Clinton, another female candidate widely dismissed as unlikable. A month into Warren's campaign, it seemed the media was poised to Clintonize her off the primary stage. But it turned out she had a plan for that, too.

I n the tale that is captivating crowds on the campaign trail, Warren is not a professor or a political star but a hardscrabble Oklahoma "late-in-life baby" or, as her mother called her, "the surprise." Her elder brothers had joined the military; she was the last one at home, just a middle-schooler when her father had the massive heart attack that would cost him his job. "I remember the day we lost the station wagon," she tells crowds, lowering her voice. "I learned the words 'mortgage' and 'foreclosure' " listening to her parents talk when they thought she was asleep, she recalls. One day she walked in on her mother in her bedroom, crying and saying over and over, " 'We are not going to lose this house.' She was 50 years old," Warren adds, "had never worked outside the home, and she was terrified."

RELATED ARTICLE

This part of the story has been a Warren staple for years: Her mother put on her best dress and her high heels and walked down to a Sears, where she got a minimum-wage job. Warren got a private lesson from her mother's sacrifice -- "You do what you have to to take care of those you love" -- and a political one, too. "That minimum-wage job saved our house, and it saved our family." In the 1960s, she says, "a minimum-wage job could support a family of three. Now the minimum wage can't keep a momma and a baby out of poverty."

That's Act I of Warren's story and of the disappearing American middle class whose collective story her family's arc symbolizes. In Act II, she walks the crowd through her early career, including some personal choices that turned her path rockier: early marriage, dropping out of college. But her focus now is on what made it possible for her to rise from the working class. Warren tells us how she went back to school and got her teaching certificate at a public university, then went to law school at another public university. Both cost only a few hundred dollars in tuition a year. She always ends with a crowd-pleaser: "My daddy ended up as a janitor, but his baby daughter got the opportunity to become a public-school teacher, a law professor, a US senator, and run for president!"


Warren has honed this story since her 2012 Senate campaign. Remember her "Nobody in this country got rich on his own" speech ? It was an explanation of how the elite amassed wealth thanks to government investments in roads, schools, energy, and police protection, which drew more than 1 million views on YouTube. Over the years, she has become the best explainer of the way the US government, sometime around 1980, flipped from building the middle class to protecting the wealthy. Her 2014 book, A Fighting Chance , explains how Warren (once a Republican, like two of her brothers) saw her own family's struggle in the stories of those families whose bankruptcies she studied as a lawyer -- families she once thought might have been slackers. Starting in 1989, with a book she cowrote on bankruptcy and consumer credit, her writing has charted the way government policies turned against the middle class and toward corporations. That research got her tapped by then–Senate majority leader Harry Reid to oversee the Troubled Assets Relief Program after the 2008 financial crash and made her a favorite on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart . Starting in the mid-2000s, she publicly clashed with prominent Democrats, including Biden , a senator at the time, over bankruptcy reforms, and later with then–Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner over the bank bailouts.

Sanders, of course, has a story too, about a government that works for the "millionaires and billionaires." But he has a hard time connecting his family's stories of struggle to his policies. After his first few campaign events, he ditched the details about growing up poor in Brooklyn. In early June, he returned to his personal story in a New York Times op-ed .

W arren preaches the need for "big structural change" so often that a crowd chanted the phrase back at her during a speech in San Francisco the first weekend in June. Then she gets specific. In Act III of her stump speech, she lays out her dizzying array of plans. But by then they're not dizzying, because she has anchored them to her life and the lives of her listeners. The rapport she develops with her audience, sharing her tragedies and disappointments -- questionable choices and all -- makes her bold policy pitches feel believable. She starts with her proposed wealth tax: two cents on every dollar of your worth after $50 million, which she says would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years. (She has also proposed a 7 percent surtax on corporate profits above $100 million.)

Warren sells the tax with a vivid, effective comparison. "How many of you own a home?" she asks. At most of her stops in Iowa, it was roughly half the crowd. "Well, you already pay a wealth tax on your major asset. You pay a property tax, right?" People start nodding. "I just want to make sure we're also taxing the diamonds, the Rembrandts, the yachts, and the stock portfolios." Nobody in those Iowa crowds seemed to have a problem with that.

Then she lays out the shocking fact that people in the top 1 percent pay roughly 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes, while the bottom 99 percent pay 7.4 percent.

That "big structural change" would pay for the items on Warren's agenda -- the programs that would rebuild the opportunity ladder to the middle class -- that have become her signature: free technical school or two- or four-year public college; at least partial loan forgiveness for 95 percent of those with student debt; universal child care and prekindergarten, with costs capped at 7 percent of family income; and a pay hike for child-care workers.

"Big structural change" would also include strengthening unions and giving workers 40 percent of the seats on corporate boards. Warren promises to break up Big Tech and Big Finance. She calls for a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote and vows to push to overturn Citizens United . To those who say it's too much, she ends every public event the same way: "What do you think they said to the abolitionists? 'Too hard!' To the suffragists fighting to get women the right to vote? 'Too hard!' To the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, to the activists who wanted equal marriage? 'Give up now!' " But none of them gave up, she adds, and she won't either. Closing that way, she got a standing ovation at every event I attended.

R ecently, Warren has incorporated into her pitch the stark differences between what mid-20th-century government offered to black and white Americans. This wasn't always the case. After a speech she delivered at the Roosevelt Institute in 2015, I heard black audience members complain about her whitewashed version of the era when government built the (white) middle class. Many black workers were ineligible for Social Security; the GI Bill didn't prohibit racial discrimination ; and federal loan guarantees systematically excluded black home buyers and black neighborhoods. "I love Elizabeth, but those stories about the '50s drive me crazy," one black progressive said.

The critiques must have made their way to Warren. Ta-Nehisi Coates recently told The New Yorker that after his influential Atlantic essay "The Case for Reparations" appeared five years ago, the Massachusetts senator asked to meet with him. "She had read it. She was deeply serious, and she had questions." Now, when Warren talks about the New Deal, she is quick to mention the ways African Americans were shut out. Her fortunes on the campaign trail brightened after April's She the People forum in Houston, where she joined eight other candidates in talking to what the group's founder, Aimee Allison, calls "the real Democratic base": women of color, many from the South. California's Kamala Harris, only the second African-American woman ever elected to the US Senate, might have had the edge coming in, but Warren surprised the crowd. "She walked in to polite applause and walked out to a standing ovation," Allison said, after the candidate impressed the crowd with policies to address black maternal-health disparities, the black-white wealth gap, pay inequity, and more.



G Jutson says:

July 4, 2019 at 1:00 pm

Well here we are in the circular firing squad Obama warned us about. Sander's fan boys vs. Warren women. Sanders has been our voice in DC on the issues for a generation. He has changed the debate. Thank you Bernie. Now a Capitalist that wants to really reform it can be a viable candidate. Warren is that person. We supported Sanders last time to help us get to this stage. Time to pass the baton to someone that can beat Trump. After the Sept. debates I expect The Nation to endorse Warren and to still hear grumbling from those that think moving on from candidate Bernie somehow means unfaithfulness to his/our message .

Kenneth Viste says: June 27, 2019 at 5:52 am

I would like to hear her talk about free college as an investment in people rather than an expense. Educated people earn more and therefore pay more taxes than uneducated so it pays to educate the populous to the highest level possible.

Jim Dickinson says: June 26, 2019 at 7:11 pm

Warren gets it and IMO is probably the best Democratic candidate of the bunch. Biden does not get it and I get depressed seeing him poll above Warren with his tired corporate ideas from the past.

I have a different take on her not being progressive enough. Her progressive politics are grounded in reality and not in the pie in the sky dreams of Sanders, et al. The US is a massively regressive nation and proposing doing everything at once, including a total revamp of our healthcare system is simply unrealistic.

That was my problem with Sanders, who's ideas I agree with. There is no way in hell to make the US into a progressive dream in one election - NONE.

I too dream of a progressive US that most likely goes well beyond what most people envision. But I also have watched those dreams collapse many, many times in the past when we reach too far. I hope that we can make important but obtainable changes which might make the great unwashed masses see who cares about them and who does not.

I hope that she does well because she has a plan for many of the ills of this nation. The US could certainly use some coherent plans after the chaos and insanity of the Trump years. Arguing about who was the best Democratic candidate in 2016 helped put this schmuck in office and I hope that we don't go down that path again.

Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:13 pm

I had a misunderstanding about one key aspect of Warren's political history. I had always thought that she was neutral in 2016 between Sanders and Hillary Clinton. On CNN this morning, a news clip showed that Warren in fact endorsed Hillary Clinton publicly, shouting "I'm with her," BEFORE Sanders withdrew from the race. This action had the effect of weakening Sanders' bargaining position vis a vis Clinton once he actually withdrew. Clinton proceeded to treat Sanders and his movement like a dish rag. I am now less ready to support Warren in any way.

Robert Andrews says: June 26, 2019 at 12:17 pm

I have three main reasons I do not want Senator Warren nominate which are:

Not going all out for a single payer healthcare system. This is a massive problem with Warren. With her starting out by moving certain groups to Medicare is sketchy at best. Which groups would be graced first? I am sure whoever is left behind will be thrilled. Is Warren going to expand Medicare so that supplemental coverages will not be needed anymore? Crying about going too far too fast is a losing attitude. You go after the most powerful lobby in the country full bore if you want any kind of real and lasting changes.

With Warren's positions and actions with foreign policy this statement is striking, "Once Warren's foreign policy record is scrutinized, her status as a progressive champion starts to wither. While Warren is not on the far right of Democratic politics on war and peace, she also is not a progressive -- nor a leader -- and has failed to use her powerful position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to challenge the status quo" - Sarah Lazare. She is the web editor at In These Times. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch. She tweets at @sarahlazare.

Lastly, the stench with selling off her integrity with receiving corporate donations again if nominated is overpowering.

For reference, she was a registered Republican until the mid 1990's.

Joan Walsh, why don't you give congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard any presence with your articles? Her level of integrity out shines any other female candidate and Gabbard's positions and actions are progressive. I don't want to hear that she isn't a major player, because you have included Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gabbard's media blackout has been dramatic, thank you for your contribution with it also.

Robert Andrews says: June 27, 2019 at 8:29 am

I was impressed with Warren on the debate, especially since she finally opened her arms to a single payer healthcare system.

Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:35 pm

Gabbard is playing a very important role in this race, whatever her numbers (which are probably higher than those being reported and are sure to go up after tonight). In some ways, her position in 2020 resembles that of Sanders in 2016--the progressive outlier, specifically on issues relating to the U.S. policy of endless war. Gabbard makes Sanders look more mainstream by comparison on this issue (though their difference is more one of emphasis than substance), making it much harder for the DNC establishment to demonize and ostracize Sanders. (Third Way really, really wants to stop Sanders--they have called him an "existential threat.") Gabbard's important role in this respect is one reason the DNC and its factotums are expending such effort on sliming her.

By the way, Nation, you have now reprinted my first comment to this article five (5) times!

Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:19 pm

Tulsi,
Our most eloquent anti-military-interventionism candidate, hands down.

Richard Phelps says: June 26, 2019 at 1:29 pm

Unfortunately EW doesn't beat Trump past the margin of error in all the polls I have seen. Bernie does in most. The other scary factor is how so many neoliberals are now talking nice about her. They want anyone but the true, consistent progressive, Bernie. And her backing away from putting us on a human path on health care, like so many other countries, is foreboding of a sellout to the health insurance companies, a group focused on profits over health care for our citizens. A group with no redeeming social value. 40,000+ people die each year due to lack of medical care, so the company executives can have their 8 figure salaries and golden parachutes when they retire. Also don't forget they are adamantly anti union. Where is Warren's fervor to ride our country of this leach on society? PS I donated $250 to her last Senate campaign. I like her. She is just not what we need to stop the final stages of oligarchic take over, where so much of our resources are wasted on the Pentagon and unnecessary wars and black opps. It is not Bernie or bust, it is Bernie or oligarchy!!!

Walter Pewen says: June 27, 2019 at 10:52 am

Frankly, having family from Oklahoma I'd say Warren IS a progressive. Start reading backwards and you will find out.

Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:24 pm

You certainly shall never see her call out AIPAC.
She has since tried to shift her posture.. but, her original take was lamentable.

https://theintercept.com/2014/08/28/elizabeth-warren-speaks-israelgaza-sounds-like-netanyahu/

Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 10:29 pm

You really need to give Hillary responsibility for her loss, Andy
Also, to Obama, who sold control of the DNC over to Clinton Inc in Sept, 2015.
I'll vote for Warren, of course.
Sadly, with our endless wars and our rogue state Israel, Ms Warren is way too deferential; seemingly hopeless.

Walter Pewen says: June 28, 2019 at 11:22 am

I don't want to vote for Biden. And if he gets the nomination I probably won't. And I've voted the ticket since 1976. I DO NOT like Joe Biden. Contrary to the media mind fuck we are getting in this era. And I'll wager a LOT of people don't like him. He is a dick.

Karin Eckvall says: June 26, 2019 at 10:50 am

Well-done article Ms. Walsh. Walter, I want to vote for her but can't because although she has plans to deal with the waste and corruption at the Pentagon, she has not renounced our endless militarism, our establishment-endorsed mission to police the world and to change regimes whenever we feel like it.

[Jul 13, 2019] Did Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Work for Mossad by Philip Giraldi

Jul 13, 2019 | www.unz.com

The extent of Israeli spying directed against the United States is a huge story that is only rarely addressed in the mainstream media. The Jewish state regularly tops the list for ostensibly friendly countries that aggressively conduct espionage against the U.S. and Jewish American Jonathan Pollard, who was imprisoned in 1987 for spying for Israel, is now regarded as the most damaging spy in the history of the United States.

Last week I wrote about how Israeli spies operating more-or-less freely in the U.S. are rarely interfered with, much less arrested and prosecuted, because there is an unwillingness on the part of upper echelons of government to do so. I cited the case of Arnon Milchan, a billionaire Hollywood movie producer who had a secret life that included stealing restricted technology in the United States to enable development of Israel's nuclear weapons program, something that was very much against U.S. interests. Milchan was involved in a number of other thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state, so much so that his work as a movie producer was actually reported to be less lucrative than his work as a spy and black-market arms merchant, for which he operated on a commission basis.

That Milchan has never been arrested by the United States government or even questioned about his illegal activity, which was well known to the authorities, is just one more manifestation of the effectiveness of Jewish power in Washington, but a far more compelling case involving possible espionage with major political manifestations has just re-surfaced. I am referring to Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire Wall Street "financier" who has been arrested and charged with operating a "vast" network of underage girls for sex, operating out of his mansions in New York City and Florida as well as his private island in the Caribbean, referred to by visitors as "Orgy Island." Among other high-value associates, it is claimed that Epstein was particularly close to Bill Clinton, who flew dozens of times on Epstein's private 727.

Alex Acosta (L) Jeffrey Epstein (R)

Epstein was arrested on July 8th after indictment by a federal grand jury in New York. It was more than a decade after Alexander Acosta, the top federal prosecutor in Miami, who is now President Trump's secretary of labor, accepted a plea bargain involving similar allegations regarding pedophilia that was not shared with the accusers prior to being finalized in court. There were reportedly hundreds of victims, some 35 of whom were identified, but Acosta deliberately denied the two actual plaintiffs their day in court to testify before sentencing.

Acosta's intervention meant that Epstein avoided both a public trial and a possible federal prison sentence, instead serving only 13 months of an 18-month sentence in the almost-no-security Palm Beach County Jail on charges of soliciting prostitution in Florida. While in custody, he was permitted to leave jail for sixteen hours six days a week to work in his office.

Epstein's crimes were carried out in his $56 million Manhattan mansion and in his oceanside villa in Palm Beach Florida. Both residences were equipped with hidden cameras and microphones in the bedrooms, which Epstein reportedly used to record sexual encounters between his high-profile guests and his underage girls, many of whom came from poor backgrounds, who were recruited by procurers to engage in what was euphemistically described as "massages" for money. Epstein apparently hardly made any effort to conceal what he was up to: his airplane was called the "Lolita Express."

The Democrats are calling for an investigation of the Epstein affair, as well as the resignation of Acosta, but they might well wind up regretting their demands. Trump, the real target of the Acosta fury, apparently did not know about the details of the plea bargain that ended the Epstein court case. Bill and Hillary Clinton were, however, very close associates of Epstein. Bill, who flew on the "Lolita Express" at least 26 times , could plausibly be implicated in the pedophilia given his track record and relative lack of conventional morals. On many of the trips, Bill refused Secret Service escorts, who would have been witnesses of any misbehavior. On one lengthy trip to Africa in 2002, Bill and Jeffrey were accompanied by accused pedophile actor Kevin Spacey and a number of young girls, scantily clad "employees" identified only as "massage." Epstein was also a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation and was present at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton in 2010.

With an election year coming up, the Democrats would hardly want the public to be reminded of Bill's exploits, but one has to wonder where and how deep the investigation might go. There is also a possible Donald Trump angle. Though Donald may not have been a frequent flyer on the "Lolita Express," he certainly moved in the same circles as the Clintons and Epstein in New York and Palm Beach, plus he is by his own words roughly as amoral as Bill Clinton. In June 2016, one Katie Johnson filed lawsuit in New York claiming she had been repeatedly raped by Trump at an Epstein gathering in 1993 when she was 13 years old. In a 2002 New York Magazine interview Trump said "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy he's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

Selective inquiries into wrongdoing to include intense finger pointing are the name of the game in Washington, and the affaire Epstein also has all the hallmarks of a major espionage case, possibly tied to Israel. Unless Epstein is an extremely sick pedophile who enjoys watching films of other men screwing twelve-year-old girls the whole filming procedure smacks of a sophisticated intelligence service compiling material to blackmail prominent politicians and other public figures. Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal. It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do.

That Epstein was perceived as being intelligence-linked was made clear in Acosta's comments when being cleared by the Trump transition team. He was asked "Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" "Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. 'I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.'"

Questions about Epstein's wealth also suggest a connection with a secretive government agency with deep pockets. The New York Times reports that "Exactly what his money management operation did was cloaked in secrecy, as were most of the names of whomever he did it for. He claimed to work for a number of billionaires, but the only known major client was Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of several retail chains, including The Limited."

But whose intelligence service? CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive to acquire an agent like Epstein. That leaves Israel, which would have been eager to have a stable of high-level agents of influence in Europe and the United States. Epstein's contact with the Israeli intelligence service may have plausibly come through his associations with Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly served as his key procurer of young girls. Ghislaine is the daughter of Robert Maxwell , who died or possibly was assassinated in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Maxwell was an Anglo-Jewish businessman, very cosmopolitan in profile, like Epstein, a multi-millionaire who was very controversial with what were regarded as ongoing ties to Mossad. After his death, he was given a state funeral by Israel in which six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence listened while Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized : "He has done more for Israel than can today be said"

Trump (left) with Robert Maxwell (right) at an event

Epstein kept a black book identifying many of his social contacts, which is now in the hands of investigators. It included fourteen personal phone numbers belonging to Donald Trump, including ex-wife Ivana, daughter Ivanka and current wife Melania. It also included Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Jon Huntsman, Senator Ted Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, David Koch, Ehud Barak, Alan Dershowitz, John Kerry, George Mitchell, David Rockefeller, Richard Branson, Michael Bloomfield, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Elizabeth, Saudi King Salman and Edward de Rothschild.

Mossad would have exploited Epstein's contacts, arranging their cooperation by having Epstein wining and dining them while flying them off to exotic locations, providing them with women and entertainment. If they refused to cooperate, it would be time for blackmail, photos and videos of the sex with underage women.

It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes. One can expect that efforts will be made to protect top politicians like Clinton and Trump and to avoid any examination of a possible Israeli role. That is the normal practice, witness the 9/11 Report and the Mueller investigation, both of which eschewed any inquiry into what Israel might have been up to. But this time, if it was indeed an Israeli operation, it might prove difficult to cover up the story since the pedophile aspect of it has unleashed considerable public anger from all across the political spectrum. Senator Chuck Schumer , self-described as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns out that Israel is a major part of the story.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org


9/11 Inside job , says: July 11, 2019 at 4:08 pm GMT

aanirfan.blogspot.com in an article entitled " Epstein , Trump, 9/11 ' has identified Epstein's links not only to Mossad but to his business relationships with CIA controlled airlines and perhaps to the false flag attacks on 9/11 .According to Aangirfan , Epstein is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The CIA and Mossad have strong ties resulting from the efforts , according to the Wall Street Journal no less, of former CIA chiefs William Casey and James Angleton . As Acosta has confirmed , Epstein has links to "intelligence " .

SunBakedSuburb , says: July 11, 2019 at 4:08 pm GMT

The presence of Ghislaine Maxwell is proof of Mossad's ownership of Epstein's kompromat operation. Ghislaine's father, Robert Maxwell, created the Neva network -- a consortium of technology companies, banks, and Russian and Bulgarian organized crime networks -- for his Mossad masters. Keeping up the family business, Ghislaine was running Epstein for the Israelis.

Sean McBride , says: July 11, 2019 at 4:26 pm GMT

Speculation or scenario: the highest levels of the CIA and Mossad have been closely allied since the late 1940s (see especially the role of James Angleton) and are pursuing common strategic objectives.

The New York Post remarked in March 2000:

"Epstein is an enigmatic figure. Rumors abound -- including wild ones about a career in the Mossad and, contrarily, the CIA."

Perhaps Epstein has been sponsored, funded, directed and protected by both agencies working in combination.

j2 , says: July 11, 2019 at 5:39 pm GMT

A question for Giraldi. You write:

"Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal. It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do."

But would not a single intelligence agency typically target and trap one isolated person, not a whole set of interconnected people? That is, this is more like the way the P2 lodge worked in Italy, that is, a society.

RobinG , says: July 11, 2019 at 6:25 pm GMT
@Patrikios Stetsonis

Thanks for posting Alison Weir's statement. The same Israel-First crowd that lobbied for Iraq war is now eager [for U.S.] to attack Iran.

"Only a General with balls, can save the USA and to an extension, the rest of the World." How about a Major? TULSI 2020.

Mark in BC , says: July 11, 2019 at 7:14 pm GMT

With all the mystery surrounding how Epstein obtained such great wealth, I can't help but think it may be a global money laundering operation connected to the global drug trade.

Books have been written about the CIA's involvement in cocaine and heroin distribution. Whether it's HW Bush and Iran Contra(cocaine) and Bill Clinton with Mena, AR airport complicity in same or the explosion in poppy (HW's nickname just a coincidence ) production in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, drugs seem to connect all these dots and more.

And, let's not forget the Israeli "Art Student" operation that targeted DEA offices.

A way for Epstein to get out from under this with the CUFI crowd might be to point out Mary, mother of Jesus, was pregnant out of wedlock at 14 so what's the big deal?

Tired of Not Winning , says: July 11, 2019 at 7:16 pm GMT

NYT and Bloomberg have been writing about the mysterious source of Epstein's wealth. Epstein's hedge fund is established offshore and has a hush-hush list of "clients". He was once sued by a guy named Michael Stroll who said he lost all $450k of his money investing with Epstein, and he told an interviewer that everyone thought Epstein "was some kind of genius, but I never saw any genius, and I never saw him work. Anyone that wealthy would have to work 26 hours a day, Epstein played 26 hours a day." Bloomberg estimated that at best his net worth is $77m, which obviously is not enough to support his lavish lifestyle with 12 homes, a private island, private jet, 15 cars.

Epstein was "let go" by Bear Sterns because of his involvement in an insider trading case involving Edgar Bronfman, whose firm Seagram was in a hostile takeover bid of another firm. Bronfman, former president of World Jewish Congress, and his two daughters are investors in NXIVM which was recently charged with sex trafficking and other corruptions. Bronfman and Les Wexner, the single largest investor in Epstein's "hedge fund", were co-founders of the Zionist org. Mega. All these people are in one way or another connected with Israel.

I suspect Epstein and Bronfman were in fact running an international sex trafficking-racketeering ring on behalf of Mossad. That would explain his mysterious source of wealth. His little black book is rumored to include 1,500 names of who's who in politics, business and arts, and includes royalty, several foreign presidents and a famous prime minister.

Tired of Not Winning , says: July 11, 2019 at 7:52 pm GMT

Acosta needs to show some integrity and resign. But of course, if he had any, he would never have signed that plea bargain to begin with.

First Mueller, now Epstein, two chances for Barr to turn the Deep State inside out, upside down once and for all. Will he do it? I have my doubts. William Barr's father, Donald Barr, was the one who recruited Jeffrey Epstein, a two time college dropout, to be a calculus and physics teacher at the prestigious Dalton School in NYC when he was the headmaster there. Donald Barr, born Jewish but "converted" to Catholicism, was later ousted by a group of "progressive" parents at Dalton for being too conservative. But he was the one who gave Epstein the foot in the door. From there he got to teach the son of Bear Stern's CEO Ace Greenberg, and was recruited by the latter to work at Bear Sterns.

anon [398] Disclaimer , says: July 11, 2019 at 8:38 pm GMT

I wouldn't count out the CIA here. It is telling that one of Epstein's havens was overseas, several of them. These are locations where the CIA could legally operate. After collecting dirt, they could then funnel some of it selectively to the Israelis for distribution so the CIA could maintain plausible deniability while having a wall of separation between themselves and the Mossad-picked third party that leaked the info.

In fact, this is the most plausible scenario; it fits with everything we know: 1) "intelligence" reportedly told Acosta to back off 2) Epstein has been linked to the CIA 3) some of these locations were overseas, giving the CIA a legal justification for spying 4) these were largely American politicians and American allies 5) the CIA reportedly threatened Trump when he came into office by implying they would leak stuff on him: the Micheal Wolfe book, Fire and Fury I believe it was, related a story of Trump being pressured to set up a meeting with the CIA where he'd speak to them and, essentially, pledge loyalty to them because they would be his enemies otherwise (that's treason, btw); Trump dutifully complied 6) Epstein's mysterious wealth and property management would have attracted CIA attention long ago, meaning they should have been aware of this unless they helped set it up, including the guy's fake wealth (a front to get close to the powerful) anyone got a tax return for this guy?

This smells like CIA-Mossad joint op. If it were solely Mossad, the CIA should have stepped in and broken up this guy's little operation considering his targets. They should have followed up by either eliminating Epstein as a message to Mossad not to leak any of their dirt or threatened Epstein with punishment if he leaked or continued his activities. Tellingly, they covered for the guy.

follyofwar , says: July 11, 2019 at 9:57 pm GMT
@follyofwar

Also, does this sorry state of affairs make it more likely that Trump will "Wag the Dog" on Iran? Would the Epstein arrest have even happened if Trump had done Bibi's bidding and attacked Iran when the False Flag of the drone shoot down had been teed up for him like a driver smacking a golf ball. Conspiracy Theories is all we have left in the crumbling Empire of Lust and Greed. Perhaps I'm just paranoid.

Jacques Sheete , says: July 12, 2019 at 12:40 am GMT

Milchan was involved in a number of other thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state

One of many apparently.

The scum described here was rewarded with becoming the mayor of Jerusalem.

We've been involved in everything we've been asked to do [re Israel].

[Dad] went and he bought all of the equipment from the plant. It ended up being shipped to Israel. Because you know at that time, there was a complete embargo from the United States, and what little [the Israelis] got– well Most of what they got were smuggled in.Most of them were illegal, all the arms. That's what Teddy Kollek did. That was his job before he became a mayor [of Jerusalem]. He was a master smuggler. And he was good. Oh was he good! [laughter]

-Philip Weiss, Was it 'jihad' when Henry Crown smuggled plane parts to Israel?,July 29, 2013 27
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/was-it-jihad-when-henry-crown-smuggled-plane-parts-to-israel-and-when-jeffrey-goldberg-moved-there.html

The vid is good too. Shows the typical smug "Cheney" smirk of the speaker.

Hillbob , says: July 12, 2019 at 12:53 am GMT
@Art

Any wonder why Trump is so overtly and disgustingly pro Israel?

trelane , says: July 12, 2019 at 1:49 am GMT

The honey trap is one of the most powerful (and legitimate) ways to compromise public officials, including heads of state. Epstein is almost certainly Mossad.

Rabbitnexus , says: July 12, 2019 at 2:16 am GMT

This has been the talk and pretty obvious conclusion now for some time. Of COURSE Epstein was/is a MOSSAD asset if not agent. What's more his usefullness to them isn't over yet, especially if Trump is one of the names he has.

I think if Trump caves next false flag and has a go at Iran, it will imply that Trump is dirty and Epstein can prove it. I'm saying MOSSAD could be behind Epstein going down now as it makes his blakmail potential an imperitive. Hopefully Trump is clean and there are indications he is. If not then he just lost any ability to resist whatever the zippers now want of him.

Rabbitnexus , says: July 12, 2019 at 2:31 am GMT
@j2

The sort of influence Zionist "Israel" needs to wield and does requires exactly such an interconnected and multilayered stable of highly placed assets. Redundancy built in and how else do you think they manage to control so much AND avoid accountability? They cast a wide net. But you knew that I think.

renfro , says: July 12, 2019 at 2:54 am GMT
@Tired of Not Winning deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," he told his interviewers'

#4 Offshore Tax Schemes / Money Laundering
Deutsche Bank seems to be the Gordian Knot of financial filth and corruption. Epstein was a client of Deutsche Bank's 'special services department' same as Trump and Kushner ..same Deutsche bank as already fined for money laundering.

Possible Epstein and whoever was behind him engaged in all of these. If congress is going to question Acosta .first question should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence.

the grand wazoo , says: July 12, 2019 at 3:10 am GMT
@j2

You mentioned the Masonic Lodge P2 in Italy. If you haven't done so yet I recommend Paul Williams book "OPERATION GLADIO".

Achilles , says: July 12, 2019 at 3:29 am GMT

That 2002 New York piece Phil mentioned has some great tid-bits:

For more than ten years, he's been linked to Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media titan Robert Maxwell

He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Indicative of globalism, Zionism and Jewish group interest.

those close to him say the reason he quit his board seat at the Rockefeller Institute was that he hated wearing a suit.

Obviously a falsely contrived reason, wonder what the deal was here

"I invest in people – be it politics or science. It's what I do," he has said to friends. And his latest prize addition is the former president [Bill Clinton].

Certainly suggestive of an intelligence operative mindset.

Before Clinton, Epstein's rare appearances in the gossip columns tended to be speculation as to the true nature of his relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. While they are still friends, the English tabloids have postulated that Maxwell has longed for a more permanent pairing and that for undetermined reasons Epstein has not reciprocated in kind. "It's a mysterious relationship that they have," says society journalist David Patrick Columbia. "In one way, they are soul mates, yet they are hardly companions anymore. It's a nice conventional relationship, where they serve each other's purposes."

Friends of the two say that Maxwell, whose social life has always been higher-octane than Epstein's, lent a little pizzazz to the lower-profile Epstein. Indeed, at a party at Maxwell's house, her friends say, one is just as apt to see Russian ladies of the night as one is to see Prince Andrew.

Another interpretation is that his combination with Ghislaine was bringing a bit too much public attention to Epstein and his activities and therefore it was decided to let things die down a bit.

in 1976, he dropped everything and reported to work at Bear Stearns, where he started off as a junior assistant to a floor trader at the American Stock Exchange. His ascent was rapid.

At the time, options trading was an arcane and dimly understood field, just beginning to take off. To trade options, one had to value them, and to value them, one needed to be able to master such abstruse mathematical confections as the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. For Epstein, breaking down such models was pure sport, and within just a few years he had his own stable of clients. "He was not your conventional broker saying 'Buy IBM' or 'Sell Xerox,' " says Bear Stearns CEO Jimmy Cayne. "Given his mathematical background, we put him in our special-products division, where he would advise our wealthier clients on the tax implications of their portfolios. He would recommend certain tax-advantageous transactions. He is a very smart guy and has become a very important client for the firm as well."

In 1980, Epstein made partner, but he had left the firm by 1981. Working in a bureaucracy was not for him

Obviously, important facts are being left out. He is a talented options analyst but they have him advising clients on investment structures to save taxes? Why wouldn't they put him on principal trades for Bear if he was such an options whiz?

And why did he leave? Trading firms are notoriously NOT bureaucracies, and anyone with a talent for making money, especially in the early 80s, would find few fetters. Whole story not given here.

In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those with $1 billion–plus.

Getting clients in asset management is a cut-throat business. But Epstein did not even have to make a pretense of competing for business?

His firm would be different, too. He was not here just to offer investment advice; he saw himself as the financial architect of every aspect of his client's wealth – from investments to philanthropy to tax planning to security to assuaging the guilt and burdens that large sums of inherited wealth can bring on.

the conditions for investing with Epstein were steep: He would take total control of the billion dollars, charge a flat fee, and assume power of attorney to do whatever he thought was necessary to advance his client's financial cause. And he remained true to the $1 billion entry fee. According to people who know him, if you were worth $700 million and felt the need for the services of Epstein and Co., you would receive a not-so-polite no-thank-you from Epstein.

Minimum $1b invested, no track record by the asset manager, and he claims the clients give him carte blanche? This is not normal wealth management.

Turning down giant new stakes just because they fall short of $1b? Nonsense. The name of the game on the buy side on Wall Street is size, because that gives you negotiating power with the sell side.

Epstein runs a lean operation, and those close to him say that his actual staff – based here in Manhattan at the Villard House (home to Le Cirque); New Albany, Ohio; and St. Thomas, where he reincorporated his company seven years ago (now called Financial Trust Co.) – numbers around 150 and is purely administrative. When it comes to putting these billions to work in the markets, it is Epstein himself making all the investment calls – there are no analysts or portfolio managers, just twenty accountants to keep the wheels greased and a bevy of assistants – many of them conspicuously attractive young women – to organize his hectic life. So assuming, conservatively, a fee of .5 percent (he takes no commissions or percentages) on $15 billion, that makes for a management fee of $75 million a year straight into Jeff Epstein's pocket.

Epstein makes all the daily investment decisions on $15b, yet no one on the sell side knows him? In other words Epstein does not invest in new issues. But new issues are the gravy for making money on the buy side – think IPO discount. This is not normal asset management.

some have speculated that Wexner is the primary source of Epstein's lavish life – but friends leap to his defense. "Let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein has other clients besides Wexner. I know because some of them are my clients," says noted m&a lawyer Dennis Block of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. "I sent him a $500 million client a few years ago and he wouldn't take him. Said the account was too small. Both the client and I were amazed. But that's Jeffrey."

You can always trust the word of an M&A lawyer. They would never mislead anyone for advantage.

he found himself spending there [in Santa Fe], talking elementary particle physics with his friend Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel Prize–winning physicist and co-chair of the science board at the Santa Fe Institute.

his covey of scientists that inspires Epstein's true rapture. Epstein spends $20 million a year on them

Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine in 1972 and now presides over the Neurosciences Institute in La Jolla. "Jeff is extraordinary in his ability to pick up on quantitative relations," says Edelman. "He came to see us recently. He is concerned with this basic question: Is it true that the brain is not a computer? He is very quick."

Stephen Kosslyn, a psychologist at Harvard. Epstein flew up to Kosslyn's laboratory in Cambridge this year to witness an experiment that Kosslyn was conducting and Epstein was funding. Namely: Is it true that certain Tibetan monks are capable of holding a distinct mental image in their minds for twenty minutes straight?

Epstein has a particularly close relationship with Martin Nowak, an Austrian biology and mathematics professor who heads the theoretical-biology program at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Nowak is examining how game theory can be used to answer some of the basic evolutionary questions – e.g., why, in our Darwinian society, does altruistic behavior exist?

Danny Hillis, an MIT-educated computer scientist whose company, Thinking Machines, was at the forefront of the supercomputing world in the eighties, and who used to run R&D at Walt Disney Imagineering

An intelligence operative would certainly have no interest in cultivating, buying or blackmailing scientists in the fields of nuclear physics, controlling human behavior or supercomputers!

And by the way, the need to explain "altruism" in terms of game theory is a tip-off that Epstein and Nowak have no spiritual life and cannot comprehend of it in other people. No surprise to find "do what thou wilt" as his guiding principle.

Strangely enough, given his scientific obsessions, he is a computer-phobe and does not use e-mail.

Before taking a big position, Epstein will usually fly to the country in question. He recently spent a week in Germany meeting with various government officials and financial types, and he has a trip to Brazil coming up in the next few weeks. On all of these trips, he flies alone in his commercial-jet-size 727.

Friends of Epstein say he is horrified at the recent swell of media attention around him

He has never granted a formal interview, and did not offer one to this magazine, nor has his picture appeared in any publication.

The final straws. If he's not an intelligence operative, he's doing everything he can to give that impression!

He "flies alone." LOL! Poor Jeffrey, he so ronery!

Tsigantes , says: July 12, 2019 at 3:47 am GMT
@SunBakedSuburb

When Bob Maxwell died at sea or disappeared it turned out that he had used or stolen every penny of ALL the pensions of his employees .which were never recovered. After her father was given a state funeral in Israel (not England where he and his family lived and worked) there followed a 2 year court case in which his 6 children were finally excused from any responsibility for these pensions, despite inheriting his money and two of them working in his companies.

And now Ghislaine turns up as a US socialite, multi-decade pedophile procurer and international human trafficker. Nice family .nice values! ...

tac , says: July 12, 2019 at 3:52 am GMT

Since the Little SAINT James pedo-island that was allegedly owned by Jeffery Epstein did not have an airport (the closest one being Curil E King airport in St. Thomas (about ten miles away)) that means the 'guests' would either have to take a boat trip or a helicopter trip. Since Little SAINT James does have a clearly marked helicopter landing site at the north central east part of the island (when viewed on google maps in satellite view) one would suspect that is how these so-called 'guests' arrived at this pedo-island.

... ... ...

Parisian Guy , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:11 am GMT
@9/11 Inside job

According to Aangirfan , Epstein is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

This trilateral+CFR membership is plainly written on the Epstein Foundation website.

anon [189] Disclaimer , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:14 am GMT

First Weinstein then Epstein and how about the Clinton's or should we call them clintstein.birds of feather

Tired of Not Winning , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:16 am GMT
@renfro

Those activities are not mutually exclusive. It could be #5: All of the above. We all know how Mossad operates. Nothing is beyond them. The end justifies the means.

Israhell has a right to exist.

Tsigantes , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:16 am GMT
@Tired of Not Winning

Acosta is a distraction .and possibly innocent since he did what he was told which was to go easy on an intelligence asset.
Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.

Sean , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:17 am GMT

Senator Chuck Schumer, self-described as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns out that Israel is a major part of the story.

Schumer would already have been tipped of if is was an Israeli operation. It's an anti Trump thing.

Tsigantes , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:27 am GMT
@follyofwar

The fact that the case has been moved to the Southern District of New York validates your cynicism.

Has the Only Democracy in the Middle East decided to sacrifice Epstein (he can be sprung later, his jig was up anyway) so that an Epstein circus can replace Russiagate?

ChuckOrloski , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:30 am GMT
@renfro

From renfro, the following great point:
"If congress is going to question Acosta .first question should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence."

, renfro! Thanks & my respect.

Because I have special enthusiasm for renfro's advice to "Congress," such will not fly with "congress."

Daniel Rich , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:47 am GMT

@ Philip Giraldi,

Quote: "It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes."

Reply: We'll get a glistening kabuki show, with lots of wailing [walls], thunder and lightening, twists and turns, but, in the end [as this case will go on and on – Harvey Weinstein, anyone?] people will forget about it.

Huh?

Oh, look. The Cartra$$hians!!!

Intelligent Dasein , says: Website July 12, 2019 at 4:53 am GMT

I fear that this is all rapidly turning into a modified limited hangout. A whole lot of dirt will be inconclusively exposed and, even though everyone will have a pretty good idea of what happened, there won't be enough will to do anything about it.

The caveat will be when the financial system finally implodes. A horde of jobless and desperate people will rapidly lose their patience for being governed by a bunch of incompetent pedophile oligarchs, but until then everyone will just go with the flow.

j2 , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:06 am GMT
@Rabbitnexus ut it looks more like a millionaire club. Intelligence agencies prefer to use secretaries and other less visible people as spies. I would look for some association of friends of Israel, something that has lots of money, wants lots of power, spies on people, both enemies and friends, and has some special love for Israel.

I maybe wrong, but this does not seem to me to be a single intelligence agency of any country. It operates in an age old method of a secret society, like mafia or masons. It is neither mafia nor masons, but some that especially likes to help Israel and probably created it. I guess there are such friends of Israel organizations, several.

jack daniels , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:10 am GMT
@Achilles

In social science it is often assumed that people are selfish. The attempt to show that altruism contributes positively to the prospects for survival and reproduction is important in defeating the presumption of underlying selfishness. It's not a very deep idea. If ten people carry a gene that causes one of them to throw himself on a hand-grenade, thereby saving the other nine, that gives the gene a better chance of being passed along than if the grenade goes off and most or all of the carriers are killed. If interested, see the book Evolution of the Social Contract by Brian Skyrms.

Wizard of Oz , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:10 am GMT
@Tired of Not Winning ld that one of the names is supposed to be Queen Elizabeth.

First a question: who says the telephone numbers were the sort only an intimate or ultimate insider would have? Queen Elizabeth's would surely have had to be the Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham or Balmoral switchboard.

Then there is what a sleazy or dangerous guy like Epstein might be expected to do, namely toss in a whole lot of names (with or without true up to date direct line numbers) to confuse and provide diversion and cover. Cute though isn't that he was supposed still to be using an old fashioned address book in the 21st Century rather than an encrypted or at least password protected smartphone.

Anon [255] Disclaimer , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:11 am GMT

From Tennessee,

The Palm Beach mansion Epstein owned was rigged with hidden cameras in some of the guest bedrooms according to an article I read a couple of years back.

Im glad we have forums like this so the word can get out: honeypot operations are not a thing of just the KGB/Cold War past, but of the Soros/intel orgs/globalist/Establishment present.

Future politicians and wealthy businesspersons need to be aware of this. The Bible has a great old verse that goes something like, "Be sure your sins will find you out".

Tono Bungay , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:25 am GMT

"Pedophilia"? Has anyone accused Epstein of mistreating pre-pubescent girls? I don't think so. If Mr. Giraldi wants to deplore what Epstein is accused of, fine. But don't try to confuse us by suggesting that he attacked children rather than underage teens.

gsjackson , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:55 am GMT
@follyofwar even Israel understand this would not be regime change business as usual.

U.S. war gamers for years have been saying there's no way the U.S. could significantly "win" the war. It would surely drive gas prices way up, and wake up the American public, creating a probably insurmountable political problem for Trump. Israel is liable to get pelted from all sides -- Hezbollah has promised to attack in the event of war, and there are probably ways of striking from Syria and Iran. Then there are the wild cards of Russia and China. No one knows for sure what Putin would do if Iran were attacked, but he could certainly turn Israel into a parking lot very quickly if he wanted to.

Wizard of Oz , says: July 12, 2019 at 9:12 am GMT
@Achilles

Well founded scepticism. Still, now we know the extent of what Bernie Madoff got away with perhaps someone who was clever and charming and appealed to those who wouldn't have invested with Madoff just might have put together enough billion dollar portfolios to be able, as long as he managed his tax affairs well to become very rich during the 80s. It would be interesting to know how he handled the October 1988 melt down.

A1N2O3N , says: July 12, 2019 at 10:47 am GMT

Good article. I was waiting for someone to come out and state the obvious regarding the Mossad connection.

My guess is that everything will be swept under the carpet, as usual, just as it was with the famous "DC Madam" case and her black book of DC clients.

Kartoffelstampfer , says: July 12, 2019 at 11:00 am GMT

One aspect of this entire Epstein Talmudic child abuse saga that really p*sses me off is the active participation of the IRS. It was the same with Madoff and Maxwell. None of these talmudic ponzi's could have gotten off the ground if these gangsters had been correctly filing all the correct tax forms like all the other goy schmucks.

Since 2012, with the Statute of Limitations retroactively extended 3 years to a total of 6 years backwards to 2006, all undeclared foreign bank accounts of US persons or green card holders on IRS FBAR forms (Foreign Bank Account Report), and since 2012 form 8948 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets), which is even more intrusive, face IRS penalties of 50% of the highest annual balance, and many tax sinners have been forced to pay more in taxes than these bank accounts ever contained. This is the tip of the iceberg compared to jewish charity and foundation and estate fraud.

Epstein supposedly was "gifted" the NY mansion from his "mentor" at the defunct and fraudulent money changer Bear Stearns for what must have been more than 50 Million. Rick Wiles drilled down in detail into this gift on Thursday .

These kinds of shenanigans, like flying "friends" around the world to your various child abuse temples in your private jets, are taxable gifts. In fact double taxed, taxed first as income and second with the gift tax. The Lolita Express could never be declared as a business expense either.

The entire rotten affair stinks on every level and it gets more putrid at every layer of talmudic control is peeled bank. At each level more Jews and Zionists come wiggling out and scurrying off to disappear from social and dinosaur media. But also as each layer gets peeled bank we get closer to the core, which with ever more certainty is ritual child sacrifice used for talmudic control.

Vetran , says: July 12, 2019 at 11:32 am GMT
@Tsigantes

Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.

It's going to be difficult

Maurene Comey, one of the lead prosecutors who is handling the Epstein case, happens to be James Comey's daughter, the ex FBI boss.
It remains to be seen if she will be giving Bill Clinton special treatment, just like her father gave to Hillary's "lock her up".
Moreover, Judge Berman who preside the case, happens to be also a Clinton appointee (in 1998).

Jacques Sheete , says: July 12, 2019 at 11:34 am GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Chuck, have you seen this recent PG article?

The Death of Privacy: Government Fearmongers to Read Your Mail
Philip Giraldi • July 11, 2019 • 1,200 Words • 7 Comments • Reply

I say we dumb goyim pay more attention to that, and less to Errp-stain.

hobo , says: July 12, 2019 at 11:43 am GMT

In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those with $1 billion–plus.

The fly in the ointment of this carefully cultivated cover story:

"Statistics published in Forbes magazine's annual survey of America's billionaires expose this little known but shocking reality. In 1982 there were 13 billionaires; in 1983 15″

DanFromCT , says: July 12, 2019 at 11:51 am GMT
@Tired of Not Winning

There's no need for anything so crude as either the head of the CIA or FBI reporting directly to the Mossad when both agencies are riddled from top to bottom with de facto Israeli espionage agents.

MLK , says: July 12, 2019 at 11:51 am GMT

A few no doubt unappealing observations.

It's a Fool's Errand to think you can solve Epstein like a puzzle. Most, like Giraldi, are engaged in bias confirmation. That isn't to say his speculations are entirely wrong but that we're all part of the play in one way or another.

In my view timing is rarely if ever coincidental. That seems glaringly obvious here. The Epstein scandal was resurrected now for a reason. I suspect that like the Academic Admissions scandal the Permanent Government is throwing its weight around. Warning (once again) that it can inflict casualties if exposing its 2016 malefactions is taken too far.

Weinstein served the same function -- with poor Meryl Streep the Sgt. Schultz headliner.

Put yourself in the mind of the various filth (e.g. Brennan) implicated in attempting to throw the election to Hillary and, failing that, frame-up and destroy the duly elected POTUS. They think they're entitled to a pass given all they've turned a blind eye to over the years.

Epstein's arrest strikes me as a shot across the bow in the context of the upcoming IG Report/Durham Investigation. I'm not picking on Giraldi but all of his fans here should note he's been Mumble Mouth at best on those malefactions. Nor am I saying that isn't the wise move for him.

The scandal that needs to be buried is that they built a global surveillance (and storage) apparatus, including of the American people. There was widespread, systematic abuse of it during the Obama Administration ('000s of people). Whatever limitations there were, effectively Mutually Assured Destruction with the establishment factions keeping an eye on each other, collapsed as they all united to stop Trump.

Epstein, like Weinstein and the Academic Admissions scandal, is both distraction and a warning to the Governing and Business Classes -- keep you heads down and mouths shut about these powerful intelligence/national security entities.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 12, 2019 at 12:34 pm GMT

I generally think waiting to see how matters fall out is a very good idea. But when I read the information of Mr. Acosta's interview, I sank a bit. Because it strongly suggested vested interest by the government – not to get to the truth.

That even the circus that usually comes to surround even credible cases will so muddy the waters as to avoid a rendering of what actually took place.

And given how compromised the collusion matter is was or will continue to be – the stakes may be higher here such that muddying the waters will be some relief for those involved.

And why due process matters

anon [499] Disclaimer , says: July 12, 2019 at 12:35 pm GMT

Myth of brilliance has been created to explain origin of his wealth . But even that shit was not enough , more myths had to be created like capacity of having brilliant discussions with Nobel laureate ( Physics) or with great educators , and with world renowned economist .

I guess authorities can get away with saying what F lies they can say until it blows up on their faces . Jew thinks goym are stupid , so tell them whatever come to mind like having a great autonomous brain that doesn't depend on education or training or publicly visible job to figure out the finances , economy, hard computer , physical and cognitive sciences and earning millions ,
while busy with
1 taking nude picture and storing them in 3-4 different areas
2 ferrying big guns from 3 different continents to Orgy Islsnd
3 Getting their intimate information , charting them connecting them and storing them
4 having parties with semi nude girls but attended by celebrities
5 holding message parkour parties from girls procured from shanty , trailer park ,
6 having serial girl friends
– there are more .

Oh yeah!!! No wonder people under pressure , lack of information , from removal of connecting dots , undue respect for glory money power , fear for being seen as ' naysayer ' or pessimist or low IQ uninformed , and fear of public ridicule can believe or can feign to believe the wildest whoopers / lies/ plaint shit dished out by the upper echelon of the society .
( then we wonder why people believe in UFO , big foot ,
, personal angels , apparitions, or America is a force for good )

DESERT FOX , says: July 12, 2019 at 12:48 pm GMT

Epstein in my opinion is a mossad officer whose agenda is to compromise zio/US politicians for the benefit of Israel and in this he is just one of many in the zio/US and in fact the zio/US gov is infested with dual Israeli citizens whose first and only loyalty is to Israel.

Read the book Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen about the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel and the US government to see how intertwined the mossad and the CIA are and remember the joint Israeli and zio/US gov attack on the WTC on 911, the zionists rule America!

RoatanBill , says: July 12, 2019 at 1:13 pm GMT

"CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive to acquire an agent like Epstein."
This is an assertion with nothing to back it up. The CIA, in particular, has every reason to use an 'Epstein' for its nefarious purposes as it IS the deep state or at least a major part of it.
The CIA owns the drug trade in Afghanistan and Mena, Arkansas can easily be connected to CIA activities along with gun running in Mexico. The CIA is the official criminal organization within the US gov't and it went rogue decades ago. It can afford to have multiple 'Epstein' clones running around to make sure it can control the US political class to not investigate its activities too closely.
The CIA and Israel are indistinguishable from each other. Israel runs US foreign policy via the CIA and their own Mossad.

Jacques Sheete , says: July 12, 2019 at 2:03 pm GMT
@A1N2O3N

My guess is that everything will be swept under the carpet, as usual, just as it was with the famous "DC Madam" case and her black book of DC clients.

Most certainly.

BTW, what ever happened with Podesta and Pizzagate? Anyone know?

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website July 12, 2019 at 2:48 pm GMT

Come on, Phil Giraldi. Do you believe in an independent American justice system? What a joke. It's corrupt to the bone. Weinstein, Epstein, Maxwell, Adelson, Saban, Koch you name it, have America in their pocket like Sharon used to say. During a furious beef between Sharon and Shimon Peres, Sharon turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something obvious, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

Mike from Jersey , says: July 12, 2019 at 2:49 pm GMT

I read the Miami Herald's articles on the "plea deal" by which Epstein got a slap on the wrist.

I recommend that everyone read them.

This is just one of them.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article214210674.html

Now ask yourself a question?

Could anyone but an intelligence agency get away with all of the following: 1) harassing witnesses (forcing their cars off the road public highways), 2) searching the trash of police officers in an attempt to find dirt on the officers and 3) obtaining a sweet heart plea bargain when the police had dozens of victims (who didn't even know each other) telling the exact same story and ready to testify – as well as photos of nude adolescents seized in a search.

Who could have done such things and got away with it.

Epstein must have been an operative. The only question is: for whom did he work?

Amerimutt Golems , says: July 12, 2019 at 3:37 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

Gasp!!! Are you suggesting sweet, innocent Monica was blowing Slick Willie for reasons other than his taking advantage of her?

In his book Gideon's Spies the late Welsh author Gordon Thomas claimed Mossad had tapes of the same for blackmail reasons. However, this has never been confirmed.

TGD , says: July 12, 2019 at 3:45 pm GMT

Epstein will "cop a plea" and avoid a trial. That is certain.

A couple of things I'd like to ask the brilliant Epstein: Why did you engage in your nefarious sexual activity in New York State and Florida? The "age of consent" in both states is 18. In New Jersey, PA and other states, it's 16. Now US federal law prohibits sex between people 12 to 16 if one of the participants is 4 years or more older than the other. The law says "between" not inclusive of 16. So 16 might be OK. That's young enough.

Also Jeffrey, why didn't you take your "Lolita Express" to Tel Aviv? It's legal in Israel and no one checks up of the actual ages of the "working girls." And most are the tall blond/blue and slim types from Eastern Europe.

SafeNow , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:13 pm GMT

"Pedophile" is incorrect, as a commenter noted. The age cutoff is 13 for pedophilia. DSM-5. These escapades comprise different serious felonies. However, the Epstein colleagues can rest easy, if Rush's instinct about prosecuting Hillary is correct. Rush has said that prosecuting Hillary will not happen, because it would "roil" the nation. Same here. I expect to see a lot of MSM passive voice, and intransitive verbs, but no roiling. "The car drove off the side of the bridge."

jack daniels , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:13 pm GMT
@niteranger

Asimov's father once wrote a book called "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man." Hmm .

More seriously, did it ever occur to you that someone might want to know your source before accepting your claim that Mueller "supposedly classified Epstein as an informant"? Supposed by whom?? Eh????

Rurik , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:36 pm GMT
@Talha sh meat.

believes Epstein allegedly preyed on Araoz when she was 14 because she was vulnerable.

"She had just transferred to a new school and didn't know anybody," attorney Kimberly Lerner said in an interview. "She didn't have a father. Her mother was very poor. She was from a single-parent home. She was really struggling, and she wanted to be a model and an actress. He absolutely preyed upon the most vulnerable."

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/epstein-accuser-jennifer-araozs-lawyer-165000048.html

S , says: July 12, 2019 at 4:53 pm GMT
@Lou123 n Ring' which supposedly was providing child prostitutes to high level US politicians who in turn were then being blackmailed by the existence of surreptitious recordings having been made of these incidents by US intelligence agencies.

The below newspaper article explains what ultimately happened to the lead investigator of the case. Gary Caradori had been hired by the Nebraska state legislature to find out what had actually transpired regarding the alleged Nebraska based ring.

Needless to say his investigation was unexpectedly 'cut short'.

kiers , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:12 pm GMT
@Tired of Not Winning

What if .Acostoa is just a stooge, In fact he probably insisted on SOME jail time here. Otherwise the rest of the US "justice" system could care less. Even NYC is complicit. It's a snow job of theater, this democracy is. It's a joke. It only looks like a democracy on tv.

AnonFromTN , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:16 pm GMT

Mossad, CIA, FBI, MI5, who cares? All of these are criminal enterprises, just like the governments providing them cover and "legitimacy".

Really interesting aspect of any elite in-fighting is that it exposes an "uncomfortable truth" that there is only one elite running the show. That there is only Republicratic party, which regularly organizes (for the benefit of sheeple still believing in "democracy") puppet shows called elections, where ostensibly Democrats battle Republicans. In fact, both are just two hands of the same puppet master. That's why the same criminals are prominent at all "Republican" and "Democratic" functions.

The other thing that the story of that Epstein character clearly shows is that all those "respectable people" are nothing more than rich criminals, and the only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.

Bombercommand , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:23 pm GMT
@Talha refully scripted to identify girls who could be vulnerable to manipulation, have a chaotic family life, need money, need social connections for career advancement . The female procurer would report to Epstein and receive instructions to abandon or continue to recruit the "candidate". A female procurer is used as she will not arouse suspicion in a young girl. These are simple techniques that have been used for centuries worldwide. A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is OK or not OK, and most importantly be an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets(being overprotective merely makes her more vulnerable).
Republic , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:35 pm GMT
@Mike from Jersey

If Epstein worked for Mossad, why wasn't he tipped off in Paris not to return to the US?

Israeli Intel is the best in the world. They knew about the secret grand jury and the indictment.

On a side note even if Epstein is convicted and jailed, there is a possibility that he could be secretly released.

In US penal history that has happened before.

JimDandy , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:41 pm GMT

Meh. Get ready for a tidal wave of MSM articles talking about how the deranged, alt-right internet conspiracy theorists are having a field day with the Epstein case, after which your average American moron will be programmed to just smirk and roll his eyes whenever the facts touched on in this article are brought up.

RobinG , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Patrikios Stetsonis

Well you 've got a point there

Yes, I do, but y'all seem to have missed it.

Talha , says: July 12, 2019 at 6:58 pm GMT
@Bombercommand

Ms. Aroaz's father was deceased before she met the female procurer

Well, then I take back what I said – obviously can't blame a dead man for not being there.

A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is OK or not OK, and most importantly be an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets

Excellent points.

have a chaotic family life,

This seems key.

Peace.

niteranger , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:09 pm GMT
@jack daniels

Here's at least one link: https://goldfiremedia.net/2018/07/07/muellers-fbi-may-have-given-jeffrey-epstein-a-sweetheart-deal/

There are many more if you look them up! Mueller is a Bag Man in the intelligence agencies.

anonymous [375] Disclaimer , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:13 pm GMT
@Talha

Fathers are passé in America. Strong, intelligent wimmin are doing things for themselves.!

renfro , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:16 pm GMT
@Kartoffelstampfer

Agree.

If Epstein's tax returns aren't brought out /investigated in his trial then that means this trial will be another cover up.

niteranger , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:17 pm GMT
@Patrikios Stetsonis

I don't know if Giraldi is a plant or not. However, the first law of understanding "intelligence agents" or ex spooks is to always be suspicious of everyone. The group he belongs too seems legitimate enough but we have been set up before. I've be reading Giraldi a long time and he has a similar "theme" in every piece but he also leaves small things out that should be in his articles. The Devil is in the Details and man with his experience should be "Detailed Oriented."

He should know about Epstein and Muller and a few other things since this is the stock and trade of all intelligence agencies.

Alden , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:17 pm GMT
@Tired of Not Winning

Acosta did resign

Alden , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:21 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Unless he had a recruiter pimp in Slovenia 40 years ago I doubt Melania was an Epstein girl.

Tired of Not Winning , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:38 pm GMT

The interesting thing about this case is, the left wants it exposed because they think it'll take down Trump, the right wants it exposed because they think it'll take down Bill Clinton. My guess is, more Dems will go down than Republicans. Trump was a Democrat and a big supporter of Clintons and Chuck Schumer before he decided to run as a GOP in 2016. He could've gone either way.

Sex scandals tend to plague the left, especially sexual perversions like porn, prostitution, child sex or gay sex. It's coz the left is dominated by Jews who are prone to sexual perversion, and also because liberals believe feelings and passion trump all, anything you do is not your fault as long as you are just following your feelings.

One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them. They might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over. Epstein could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll be the sacrificial lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.

ChuckOrloski , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Republic

Republic asked the following critical question which should not be cast away:
"If Epstein worked for Mossad, why wasn't he tipped off in Paris not to return to the US?"

! Mossad deception is sophisticated & patterns of telling a lie upon another improved lie ar characteristic.

Also, Mossad's implemented practices/techniques are adaptable to circumstances which seem supportive of what dumb goyim consider "justice served," but they actually benefit Israel.

A thought. I figure Epstein knew what fate awaited him prior to landing at Teterboro Airport tarmac.

Thanks & my respect, Republic.

Hillbob , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:48 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

ah mr AnonfromTN you are always so , so perspicacious

Alden , says: July 12, 2019 at 7:49 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

Well, Giraldi did work there and would have heard people complaining about the presence and influence of Israeli spies. Colonel Kiatowoski's book about the presence of Israeli spies in the Pentagon made it clear Pentagon personnel resented the Israeli spies but could do nothing about it.

We all know about workplace gossip and gripes.

Rurik , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:02 pm GMT
@Talha ing to a recently divorced man whose x-wife hates him (nothing new), and who has two teenage daughters. The x has poisoned the daughters against him, (nothing new), and because he was trying to be strident with his elder daughter vis-a-vis drugs, (nothing new), he now is not allowed to have any contact with them via the skewed courts, (nothing new).

They're doing a Weimar regime redux. That was the apex of their heyday, when the children of Germany were their playthings, and Berlin was a giant brothel- girls and boys for sale, especially the ones whose fathers had died in their holocaust that was WWI.

Such a deal!

Alden , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:05 pm GMT
@j2 has maybe 10 Israeli immigrants or American Jews who work for him. Each has 10-15 American Jews who can be called upon. So it's a wide network.

You're right that clerks secretaries accountants have great access to information. But the Israeli system is widespread. Plus, the information needn't always come from Jews.

It really does exist. There's an Israeli who hosts sabbath dinners in Los Angeles. He invites American Jews to be briefed on what's going on in Israel. I'm positive he also recruits agents in place he spots at those dinners. Guests who have no access to anything useful at least get to feel they're participating in the cause.

renfro , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:07 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN he only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.

True. And this Epstein coverage is bringing out more nooks and crannies of how the really rich control systems for their own benefit.

Like why was Epsteins tax rate on his NY mansion only 0.6% .why is Bill de Blasio tax rate on his mansion only 0.2% ..when other NY'ers taxrate is 12%.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-one-perverse-system-20190710-l7hryfwdd5gqndsyor3j5tsyiq-story.html

Kartoffelstampfer , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:08 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski howed the original twelve members in indecent poses . At the entrance to the abbey, there was an inscription which read Fay ce que voudras – do what thou wilt – a term which Aleister Crowley borrowed nearly 200 years later. "

Ben Franklin likely would have been a prominent visitor to Little St. James, just as he was to West Wycombe in his day. Thomas Paine too.

PetrOldSack , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:25 pm GMT

There is regular sex and "deviation", pornography, pedophilia

There is drugs, illegal and legal, hard and soft

Then there is finance, always pimping, always on exploitation, abuse of minors, as young as not yet born, globally, and to be comitted legally. Pedophilia and drugs are soft core, barely leveling at the sock suspenders of our financiers.

A few hundred of the top tier Wall Street-ers belong in jail, as rats eating their own tail, they only can be administered there. Starting with Mnuchin. Epstein should be let alone, so he can decoy a little longer, and await his turn, pecking order obliges. Ah, the public sector, the ones with faces, real fungi are minding the dark.

Linked on this same site today, Michael Hudson, seems to attribute Empire and financial capitalism, debt, the demise of the dollar, to Trump. ?. Of all men, another scripted clown gets the blame. The shredding is spoiling the carpet.

If unz.com is so willingly pointing out the third liners, as Maya sacrifices to the deities in the shades, then there you have one more reason the rag is impervious to censorship.

Alden , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:27 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Gardner's and retail store clerks have personal phone numbers of the rich and famous. For instance, clerks at high end retail clothing stores are supposed to cultivate shoppers on a personal level so they can call them up with the great news of items they'd like to buy.

Actors producers directors numbers and home addresses can be obtained from people who work at their agents accountants PR and attorney offices

Police departments have access to all phone numbers. Most of the Find a Number websites don't have the private number of celebrities. But there are plenty of people who can access all the cell phone records.

It's not difficult

renfro , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:40 pm GMT

How to get away with blackmailing without blackmailing.

First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home for wealthy men. Have lots of women mostly teens and under aged.

Sooner or later there will be some mingling going on. Some billionaire will get handsy and end up in a room with a girl ..and hidden cameras.

Epstein informs him later the girl was really 15, but offers him a nice, neat way to buy silence: a large allocation to his hedge fund, which charges 5% ..with power of attorney for himself.

To ease the pain for the black mailee Epstein puts the money in something as safe as treasury notes or money market fund.

Then Epstein collects his 'fees' ..x millions on the interest from treasury notes or etc..

Soooo no traceable blackmail payoff checks or wire transfers from his fellow pedos.

Epstein may also try this on other important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. He doesnt blackmail them to 'invest' in his fund but has them in his pocket.

The evidence would probably be in a deposit box in his offshore Caribbean bank.

Miro23 , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Tired of Not Winning v>

One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them. They might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over. Epstein could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll be the sacrificial lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.

Just what I was going to write, but you got there first.

Alden , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:45 pm GMT
@Tono Bungay

Thank you very much. pedophilia stops at the victims 13th birthday. Then it's various degrees of molestation of a minor . It's usually 13 and 14, then 15. Then 16 and 17. In some states the age of consent is 16. Epstein's activities weren't just molestation of minors. They were procuring for prostitution as well.

Sean McBride , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:51 pm GMT
@Lo ry, blackmail, careerism, etc.)

@Lo

I have been meaning to ask this for a while, Dr. Giraldi, let’s say stuff you write about Israel is all true, you are ex-CIA, then can we assume there are many like you or is that not the case? If that’s the case, then why none of them stand up and oppose? Or are they too afraid of standing up for their country?

There are at least nine factions in the CIA concerning Israeli politics:

1. anti-Israel for emotional reasons (instinctive hostile feelings towards Jews, Judeophobia)

2. anti-Israel for ideological reasons (reasoned opposition towards Judaism and Zionism as doctrines)

3. anti-Israel for strategic reasons (bad for long-term American interests)

4. pro-Israel for emotional reasons (warm feelings towards Jews)

5. pro-Israel for ideological reasons (for instance, Christian Zionists)

6. pro-Israel for occult reasons (the world’s most powerful secret society mandates support as part of a grand mystical scheme)

7. pro-Israel for reasons of personal self-interest (issues concerning bribery, blackmail, careerism, etc.)

8. pro-Israel for strategic reasons (good for long-term American strategic interests)

9. pro-Israel for strategic reasons AND hostile to Jews (Jewish nationalists provide a counterweight to Jewish leftists in the Diaspora, divide and conquer tactics)

Since the late 1940s, the pro-Israel factions in the CIA have easily dominated the anti-Israel (or Israel-skeptical) factions.

By the way, most CIA employees, including many high level employees, don't have a full understanding of what is going on in the CIA, including knowledge of the most influential players and operations and their connections.

Alden , says: July 12, 2019 at 8:53 pm GMT
@hobo

Thanks for looking it up. I wondered about
1 how many billionaires there were at the time.
2 how many had a billion to give to Epstein's control

Most of the billion would have been tied up in the companies and property, not cash to invest.

[Jul 13, 2019] I wonder what percentage of veterans got "woke" to this before Tulsi Gabbard?

Jul 13, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org

+ 64% of veterans said the Iraq War wasn't worth fighting , considering the costs versus the benefit to the U.S., and more than 50% think the same about the war in Afghanistan I wonder what percentage of them got "woke" to this before Tulsi Gabbard?

[Jul 13, 2019] The saddest thing of all is that the Dems' fixation on Russia and Putin is now coming back to bite them in the ass. Trump could not have asked for a better gift.

Notable quotes:
"... You can bet that the likes of Rachel Maddow will never change their tune on the subject of Russiagate. ..."
Jul 13, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Rob , July 12, 2019 at 12:27

You can bet that the likes of Rachel Maddow will never change their tune on the subject of Russiagate.

However, with the election season heating up, it might seem wise for them to start singing a different tune altogether, such as Sanders and Warren are too radical to have any chance of defeating Trump.

The saddest thing of all is that the Dems' fixation on Russia and Putin is now coming back to bite them in the ass. Trump could not have asked for a better gift.

[Jul 13, 2019] The return of Weimar Berlin - Lawlessness, Inequality, Extremism, Divisiveness and Crime

Notable quotes:
"... You hypocrites! You build monuments for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors , we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of His messengers ..."
"... this entire Russian collusion meme seems as though it is an hysterical reaction to the spin put out by the Clinton political faction and their neoliberal enablers after their shocking loss in the 2016 Presidential election. ..."
"... the financial corruption and private pilfering using public power, money laundering and the kind of soft corruption that is rampant amongst our new elite is all there ..."
"... We are reassured and misled by the same kinds of voices that have always served the status quo and the monied interests, the think tanks, the so-called 'institutes,' and the web sites and former con men who offer a constant stream of thinly disguised propaganda and misstatements of principle and history. We are comforted by their lies. ..."
"... We wish to strike a deal with the Lord, and a deal with the Devil -- to serve both God and Mammon as it suits us. It really is that clichι. And it is so finely woven into the fabric of our day that we cannot see it; we cannot see that it is happening to us and around us. ..."
"... It has always been so, especially in times of such vanity and greed as are these. Then is now. There is nothing new under the sun. And certainly nothing exceptional about the likes of us in our indulgent self-destruction. ..."
Feb 13, 2019 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

"He drew near and saw the city, and he wept for it saying, 'If you had only recognized the things that make for peace. But now you are blinded to them. Truly, the days will come when your enemies will set up barriers to surround you, and hem you in on every side. Then they will crush you into the earth, you and your children. And they will not leave one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the way to your salvation.'"

Luke 19:41-44

"You hypocrites! You build monuments for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of His messengers.'"

Matthew 23:29-30

...the results of the Senate GOP finding no evidence of 'collusion' with Russia by the Trump Administration to influence the results of the presidential election..

This last item is not surprising, because this entire Russian collusion meme seems as though it is an hysterical reaction to the spin put out by the Clinton political faction and their neoliberal enablers after their shocking loss in the 2016 Presidential election.

Too bad though, because the financial corruption and private pilfering using public power, money laundering and the kind of soft corruption that is rampant amongst our new elite is all there. And by there we mean on both sides of the fence -- which is why it had to take a back seat to a manufactured boogeyman.

... ... ...

There is a long road ahead before we see anything like a resolution to this troubling period in American political history.

We look back at other troubled periods and places, and either see them as discrete and fictional, a very different world apart, or through some rosy lenses of good old times which were largely benign and peaceful. We fail to see the continuity, the similarity, and the commonality of a dangerous path with ourselves. As they did with their own times gone by. Madness blinds its acolytes, because they wish it so. They embrace it to hide their shame.

We are reassured and misled by the same kinds of voices that have always served the status quo and the monied interests, the think tanks, the so-called 'institutes,' and the web sites and former con men who offer a constant stream of thinly disguised propaganda and misstatements of principle and history. We are comforted by their lies.

People want to hear these reassuring words of comfort and embrace it like a 'religion,' because they do not wish to draw the conclusions that the genuine principles of faith suggest (dare we say command in this day and age) in their daily lives. They blind themselves by adopting a kind of a schizoid approach to life, where 'religion' occupies a discrete, rarefied space, and 'political or economic philosophy' dictates another set of everyday 'practical' observances and behaviors which are more pliable, and pleasing to our hardened and prideful hearts.

We wish to strike a deal with the Lord, and a deal with the Devil -- to serve both God and Mammon as it suits us. It really is that clichι. And it is so finely woven into the fabric of our day that we cannot see it; we cannot see that it is happening to us and around us.

And so we trot on into the abyss, one exception and excuse and rationalization for ourselves at a time. And we blind ourselves with false prophets and their profane theories and philosophies.

As for truth, the truth that brings life, we would interrupt the sermon on the mount itself, saying that this sentiment was all very well and good, but what stocks should we buy for our portfolio, and what horse is going to win the fifth at Belmont? Tell us something useful, practical! Oh, and can you please fix this twinge in my left shoulder? It is ruining my golf game.

"Those among the rich who are not, in the rigorous sense, damned, can understand poverty, because they are poor themselves, after a fashion; they cannot understand destitution. Capable of giving alms, perhaps, but incapable of stripping themselves bare, they will be moved, to the sound of beautiful music, at Jesus's sufferings, but His Cross, the reality of His Cross, will horrify them. They want it all out of gold, bathed in light, costly and of little weight; pleasant to see, hanging from a woman's beautiful throat."

Lιon Bloy

No surprise in this. It has always been so, especially in times of such vanity and greed as are these. Then is now. There is nothing new under the sun. And certainly nothing exceptional about the likes of us in our indulgent self-destruction.

Are you not entertained?

[Jul 12, 2019] Welcome to the Hellfire Club by MICHAEL WARREN DAVIS

This debauchery is a part of the crisis of neoliberalism. It does increases the level of de-legitimization of neoliberal elite.
As one commenter pointed out: we need the names of scum, wealthy perverts from the United States who travelled to Epstein island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.
Notable quotes:
"... This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside." ..."
"... The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes ..."
"... our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls ..."
"... This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther points out , there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably. ..."
"... Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed. ..."
"... Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to cannibalize herself circa 1789. ..."
"... Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. ..."
"... This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump? Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground. ..."
"... Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals? ..."
"... If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia, which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP. ..."
"... The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. ..."
"... I applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings ..."
"... I don't think there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget. ..."
"... Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic. ..."
"... So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news. ..."
"... Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island". ..."
"... Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground. ..."
"... It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for). ..."
"... Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender. ..."
"... I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls. ..."
"... Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward. ..."
"... Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities, but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong on that, fry him ) ..."
Jul 11, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Our elites cavorted with a pedophile, almost certainly aware of what he was up to. This is how revolutions begin.

Bill Clinton (Wikipedia Commons); Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain) and Donald Trump (Gabe Skidmore /Flickr)

For once, I'm with New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg: Jeffrey Epstein is the ultimate symbol of plutocratic rot.

In her latest column , Goldberg interviews Vicky Ward, who covered the 2003 revelations of Epstein's sex abuse for Vanity Fair . Ward's editor, Graydon Carter, allegedly ran interference for the high-flying pervert, nixing her discussion with two women who claimed to have been assaulted by Epstein. "He's sensitive about the young women," Carter explained to Ward.

This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside."

Back to Goldberg:

The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes. If it were fiction, it would be both too sordid and too on-the-nose to be believable, like a season of "True Detective" penned by a doctrinaire Marxist.

Of course, Goldberg -- being a Democrat -- doesn't want us to think of this as a partisan scandal. Yet Nancy Pelosi's daughter conspicuously tweeted that it's "quite likely that some of our faves are implicated." We all know by now that President Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express, Epstein's private jet, which ferried wealthy perverts from the United States to his island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.

Still, a few Republicans will almost certainly be implicated, too. Now, look: I voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. If I don't vote for him in 2020, it will be because I've lost faith in the whole democratic process and have moved to a hole in the ground to live as a hobbit. Having said that, Trump is definitely tainted by Epstein. In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine , the president called him a "terrific guy." "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do," Trump said, "and many of them are on the younger side."

Don't pretend that's an innocent remark. It's like when Uncle Steve passes out face-down on the kitchen floor at the family Christmas party and Uncle Bill says, "I guess that one likes to drink." We still love Uncle Steve, even if he does overdo it on the fire water. And our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls. None of us is perfect, after all.

This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther points out , there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably.

Remember how Democrats and centrist Republicans mocked conservatives for making such a stink about Monica Lewinsky's blue dress? The media elite competed to see who could appear the most unfazed by the fact that our sax-playing president was getting a bit on the side. "I mean, heh heh, I love my wife, but, heh, the 1950s called, man! They want their morality police back."

Well, look where that got us. Two confirmed adulterers have occupied the White House in living memory; both are now under fire for cavorting with a child sex slaver on Orgy Island. Go ahead and act surprised, Renault.

♦♦♦

Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed.

Whew. Now I get why people become communists. Not the new-wave, gender-fluid, pink-haired Trots, of course. Nor the new far Left, which condemns child predators like Epstein out one side of its mouth while demanding sympathy for pedophiles out the other.

No: I mean the old-fashioned, blue-collar, square-jawed Stalinists. I mean the guy with eight fingers and 12 kids who saw photos of the annual Manhattan debutantes' ball, felt the rumble in his stomach, and figured he may as well eat the rich.

Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to cannibalize herself circa 1789.

Nevertheless, those passions weren't illegitimate -- they were just misdirected. Only an Englishman like Edmund Burke could have referred to the reign of Louis XIV as "the age of chivalry." Joseph de Maistre spoke for real French conservatives when he said the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserved to be guillotined. The problem is, Maistre argued, there was no one more suitable to succeed them.

Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed.

... ... ...

Michael Warren Davis is associate editor of the Catholic Herald . Find him at www.michaelwarrendavis.com .


Gerald Arcuri • a day ago

Words fail.

Connecticut Farmer fuow • a day ago • edited

"Us Democrats"??? This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump? Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground.

The only question is whether or not those who participated in this apparent debauch will ever be brought to justice--so, on that note--let the dissembling begin!

LeeInWV fuow • a day ago

Look at the Nevada legislature and it's recent legislation if you want to know how to improve this problem in our society.

Rossbach • a day ago

Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals?

TheSmokingArgus Rossbach • a day ago

You are as my grandfather told me repeatedly: "You are your associates & colleagues, their morality or lack thereof, will in time infect you as well, despite all protests to the contrary; choose wisely."

Katherine TheSmokingArgus • an hour ago

Not true. I associate every day with people at work that I do not like, because I need to pay my mortgage.

kirthigdon • a day ago

If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia, which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP.

In France, the generation of aristocrats and especially the royal family who were guillotined were relatively conservative in their sexual habits compared to the bloodthirsty sexual revolutionaries who murdered them. And the libertine aristocrats of Great Britain (I believe that's where the actual hellfire club was from) led the war against Napoleon and the temporary victory of the old order which followed his defeat.

Kirt Higdon

C. Reef • a day ago • edited

The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. Tribalism is alive and well. Wars, diversity, erasing of our most cherished values, and a mainstream media that is in lockstep the rulers and those who see fit to erase Freedom of Speech and make arbitrarily decisions as to what we can and cannot say. It is like living a bad dream. I applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings

LeeInWV C. Reef • a day ago

It's the mainstream media that forced this into the light. The elites and the justice system did all they could to cover it up, same as with the Catholic Church.

As for "our most cherished virtues", this has all been going on forever. Kings and courtiers, masters and slaves, the son of the manor and the serving girls. Give me a break.

The only thing that is changing it is a shift in power to women.

paradoctor LeeInWV • a day ago

And the fact that we talk about it.

paradoctor • a day ago

A regime's cruelty creates motive for revolution; its folly creates methods for revolution; and its weakness creates opportunity for revolution.

Didaskalos • a day ago

"Paederasty" is better reserved for relationships between patrician men, and boys, in which there was an expectation that the boy would eventually approximate the social rank of his lover. Not to be applied to a man running a little-girl brothel.

Rick Steven D. Didaskalos • a day ago

From the musical Hair, a major, representative work of the culture that brought us the Sexual Revolution:

Sodomy/fellatio/cunnilingus/paederasty
Mama/why do these words sound so nasty?

Kessler • a day ago

In UK thousands of girls were raped and nobody lost their job over it. Well, correction, people who tried to bring attention to the horrific crimes happening lost their jobs or were prosecuted. After the scandal could no longer be contained and arrests were finally made, there was no reckoning. No people marching in the streets, demanding heads of the goverment. I don't think there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget.

EliteCommInc. Kessler • 21 hours ago

Or might possibly be that upon examination, it became abundantly clear that the allegations were highly exaggerated as is typically the case in these matters.

It might be a good idea to keep a clear head and hope that evidence "actual evidence" will determine events as opposed to the salacious hysetria that usually surrounds these cases.

Bungalow Bill • a day ago

Bingo!

Rick Steven D. • a day ago • edited

"...the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserve to be guillotined. The problem is...there is no one suitable to replace them."

100%. And I work as a psychiatric RN in a busy Emergency Room. Believe me, depravity in this country is not in the least bit confined to 'elites'. They just make convenient scapegoats. I can tell you hundreds of stories. But conservatively, I would estimate that anywhere from 50% to 75% of the women I care for were abused as children. And I have cared for literally thousands of women over the years.

"This is how revolutions are born."

Not so fast. The French peasants were rioting over bread, not aristocratic decadence. In 21st Century America, no one is starving. The poor in this country are obese, for Chr-sakes! And half the country is implicated in so-called 'aristocratic decadence', through online porn.

And like John Lennon once wrote, "You say you want a revolution?" Be careful what you wish for...

Sid Finster Lee Jones • a day ago

Prosecutors will tiptoe around anything that puts them in an awkward position vis-a-vis the rich and powerful.

These are people that prosecutors want to owe you favors, and these are also people that can ruin the lives and career prospects of law enforcement.

This explains why, to give instance, Comey engaged in comically tortured legal reasoning to justify not bringing charges against HRC for servergate, when she would be cooling her heels in a SuperMax if she were a normie. According to conventional wisdom, HRC was going to be the next president, already anointed practically, and that meant that she was someone that would be in a position to do Comey big favors, and at the same time, someone that you did not want to make an enemy of.

Jerry • a day ago

Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic.

The Clintons, for example, have been getting away with sordid and even criminal behavior for a long time. It didn't stop a major political party from putting one of them at the top of its presidential ticket only a few years ago nor a majority of voters from pulling the lever for her.

In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry. Check the record. Yeah, the Clintons are Exhibit A of the Real Problem. Anyway, there ain't gonna be a revolution, at least not the kind that Michael Warren Davis warns of.

Barry_D Jerry • 19 hours ago

"In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry. Check the record. "

The equivalent today would have been if Mueller's replacement spent a few more years 'investigating' Trump, only to set him up with a perjury trap over whether or not he committed adultery.

Coonie • a day ago

This piece at the very least is not well researched hit piece on Trump but seems more to be a rabble rousing class warfare type click bait filler. James Patterson reports that Trump kicked Epstein out of Maro-a-Lago 15 years ago after there were complaints that he was abusive to women and more recently has said he is not a fan of Epstein. I've seen no evidence that Trump participated in the abuse of underage girls with Epstein. Trump is no saint but sensationalizing this story and implicating Trump to sell your copy is not journalism.

Michael D. Nichols • a day ago • edited

So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news.

chrismalllory Michael D. Nichols • a day ago

And it was a comment made three years before the first known report to police about Epstein's behavior. I read Trump's comment as Trump being Trump. Unless he is responding to a personal attack, Trump tends to layer on the compliments and tries to speak positive about people.

Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island".

TrustbutVerify chrismalllory • an hour ago

Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground.

TruthsRonin • a day ago

The author throws around "revolution" so casually... The guillotine definitely needs a resurgence; unfortunately, it's not just the aristocracy that needs it; moreover, there are still none better suited to take over after they chopping has stopped.

The Arioch TruthsRonin • 20 hours ago

And throws without not even a thought but also without care to learn or now. It is funny that American journo is now invoking Stalin's ghost, but.... Stalinists were COUNTER-revolutionaries. And he says he is sure he knows who they felt?
.
Inflation, words means nothing today for journos, being merely a click-bait

WilliamRD • a day ago

According to the Washington Post Trump Banned Epstein From Mar-a-Lago Years Ago because he propositioned an underage girl at the club.

This is not a Trump problem.

Dave WilliamRD • a day ago

It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for).

Also, Trump supposedly told a campaign aide that he barred Epstein. Perhaps that's true. Hard to know with this inveterate liar.

TrustbutVerify Dave • an hour ago

Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender.

Now, should the Feds have interfered in a State case is a matter for another discussion. But Actosta's office did MORE than what they should and everything they could with the evidence at the time.

As to Trump banning Epstein - it isn't "Trump told some aide", it is in the court records of the trial. Trump was subpoenaed and talked voluntarily to the attorney for the girls. The attorney for the girls researched it and he says, and it is in the court record, that Trump banned Epstein.

This is not a "Trump problem" as the media is trying to make it...this is a Dem problem.

JeffK from PA WilliamRD • 21 hours ago

I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls.

TrustbutVerify JeffK from PA • an hour ago

Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward.

THAT is your biggest clue that their claims are, as the judge recently said in dismissing one of these laughable cases, ""As currently stated, the Complaint presents a political lawsuit, not a tort and wages lawsuit,"

Then, of course, the Trump lawyers just released a video of what happened that shows he gave her a peck on the cheek during a conversation as he was leaving. She lied.

Xanadu • a day ago

I think some conservative, maybe Rubio, needs to stand up and simply state they are going to lead on this, and then do so.

Simply go after anyone that is involved and make the casual nature of peoples knowledge of this kind of behavior into a something that has to be repented of.

Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities, but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong on that, fry him )

For a republican leader to stand up as I am suggesting, would force the left to make a decision. Either abandon their current attitudes towards sexual permissiveness, or defend them. Either way conservatives win.

TrustbutVerify Xanadu • an hour ago

That comment was from three years before Epstein was charged. But YOUNG does not mean TOO young, always, and Trump was obviously speaking of what OTHERS say, not what he knew for a fact.

Dave • a day ago

Davis--and many TAC readers--voted for Trump even though the then-candidate sexually assaulted women and got caught bragging about it.

While I welcome conservatives to the #metoo era, it must be acknowledged that their "outrage" didn't come to life until they could attach the dirty deeds to Bill Clinton and other "elites" (whatever that overused term means).

TrustbutVerify Dave • an hour ago

No, it came with Weinstein...who proved what Trump ACTUALLY said on the bus to be true. Not that HE, Trump, HAD grabbed women, but that young women seeking fame would LET the rich and famous grab them. Shortly after we found out that this was true when we found out about Weinstein and what those young starlets allowed. What people knew, all good Hollywood liberals and Dems, and LET continue while accepting Weinstein's political contributions and working with him professionally.

Please.

[Jul 12, 2019] Lock Him Up - The American Conservative

Essentially Epstein run a brothel for influential politicians and other stars. Girls were paid so they were hired prostitutes. That fact that he did it with impunity for so long suggest state sponsorship.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been reported , albeit not confirmed, that his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business, and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated. ..."
"... Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans. ..."
"... In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over. ..."
"... In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks. ..."
"... Hardly. It merely puts it into historical perspective. Epstein is but one of a long line of serial sexual predators through the ages. ..."
"... Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely to come from within the family. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island" or "Pedo Island" by the locals. ..."
"... I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc. ..."
"... Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness." ..."
"... If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many more important people are involved than those we know. ..."
"... Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this isn't yet another part of the coup attempt. ..."
"... Trump also gave other evidence and information he had gleaned to prosecutors during the first Epstien trial. ..."
"... We should point this out as often as possible because liberal media is trying to smear Trump by including his name next to Epstien in every article. ..."
Jul 12, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Jeffrey Epstein's trial may do what no other could: Bring populists and progressives together against predatory elites. By JAMES P. PINKERTON • July 10, 2019

Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain)

The legal proceedings against financier Jeffrey Epstein are going to be spectacular. The sober-minded New York Times is already running headlines such as "Raid on Epstein's Mansion Uncovered Nude Photos of Girls," describing the victims as "minors, some as young as 14." So, yes, this story is going to be, well, lit .

Epstein is the pluperfect "Great White Defendant," to borrow the phrase from Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up.

In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been reported , albeit not confirmed, that his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business, and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated.

Which is to say, the Epstein case is shaping up as yet another lurid look at the lifestyles of the rich, famous, and powerful, sure to boil the blood of populists on the right and class warriors on the left. In this same vein, one also thinks of the "Varsity Blues" college admissions scandal, as well as the post-Harvey Weinstein #MeToo movement.

Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans.

In that NXIUM case, it's hard not to notice the similarity between "NXIUM" and "Nexum," which was the ancient Roman word for personal debt bondage -- that is, a form of slavery.

The Romans, of course, were big on conquest and enslavement, and such aggression always had a sexual dimension, as has been the case, of course, for all empires, everywhere. Thus we come to a consistent theme across human history, namely the importation of pretty young things from the provinces for the lecherous benefit of the rich and powerful.

It's believed that Saint Gregory the Great, the pope in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, gazed upon English boys at a Roman slave market and remarked, non Angli, sed angeli, si forent Christiani ; that is, "They are not Angles, but angels, if they were Christian." Gregory's point was that such lovely beings needed to be converted to Christianity, although, of course, others had, and would continue to have, other intentions.

If we fast-forward a thousand years or so, we see another kind of enslavement, resulting, at least in part, from profound economic inequality. William Hogarth's famous prints , "A Harlot's Progress," follow the brief life of the fictive yet fetching Moll Hackabout, who comes from the provinces to London seeking employment as a seamstress -- only to end up as a kept woman, then as a prostitute, before dying of syphilis.

Interestingly, a traditional song about descent into earthly hell, "House of the Rising Sun," made popular again in the '60s , also makes reference to past honest work in the garment trade -- "my mother was a tailor."

If we step back and survey civilization's sad saga of exploitation, we see that it occurs under all manner of political and economic systems, from feudalism to capitalism to, yes, communism. As for ravenous reds, there's the notorious case of Stalinist apparatchik Lavrenti Beria, whom one chronicler says enjoyed "a Draculean sex life that combined love, rape, and perversity in almost equal measure."

In the face of such a distressing litany, it's no wonder that there have been periodic reactions, some of them violent and extreme, such as the original "bonfire of the vanities" back in the 15th century, led by the zealously puritanical cleric, Savonarola.

Yet for most of us, it's more cheering to think that prudential reform can succeed. One landmark of American reform was the White-Slave Traffic Act , signed into law in 1910 ("white slavery," we might note, is known today as "sex trafficking"). That law, aimed at preventing not only prostitution but also "debauchery," is known as the Mann Act in honor of its principal author, Representative James R. Mann, Republican of Illinois, who served in Congress from 1897 to 1922.

Mann's career mostly coincided with the presidential tenures of two great reformers, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. And it's hard to overstate just how central to progressive thinking was the combatting of "vice." After all, if the goal was to create a just society, it also had to be a wholesome society; otherwise no justice could be sustainable. Thus when Roosevelt served as police commissioner of New York City in the mid-1890s, he focused on fighting vice, rackets, and corruption.

Of course, Mann, Roosevelt, and Wilson had much more on their minds than just cleaning up depravity. They saw themselves as reformers across the board; that is, they were eager to improve economic conditions as well as social ones.

So it was that Mann also co-authored the Mann-Elkins Act , further regulating the railroads; he also spearheaded the Pure Food and Drug Act , creating the FDA. It's interesting that when Mann died in 1922, The New York Times ran an entirely admiring obituary , recalling him as "a dominating figure in the House [a] leader in dozens of parliamentary battles." In other words, back then, the Times was fully onboard with full-spectrum cleanup, on the Right as well as the Left.

To be sure, the Mann Act hardly eradicated the problem of sex-trafficking, just as Mann's other legislative efforts did not put an end to abuses in transportation and in foods and drugs. However, we can say that Mann made things better .

Of course, the Mann Act has long been controversial. Back in 1913, the African-American boxer Jack Johnson was convicted according to its provisions. (Intriguingly, in 2018, Johnson was posthumously pardoned by President Trump.)

In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over.

Cases such as these made the Mann Act distinctly unpopular in "sophisticated" circles. Of course, criticism from the smart set is not the same as proof that the law is not still valuable. That's why, more than a century after its passage, the Mann Act is still on the books, albeit much amended. Lawmakers agree that it's still necessary, because, after all, there's always a need to protect women from wolves .

Now back to Epstein. If we learn that he was actually running something called the "Lolita Express," that would be a signal that prosecutors have a lot of work to do, rounding up the pedophile joyriders. So it was interesting on July 6 to see Christine Pelosi, daughter of the House speaker, posting a stern tweet : "This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may -- whether on Republicans or Democrats."

So we can see: the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all.

In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks.

That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed.

To put the matter another way, we need a bourgeoisie that is sturdier economically and more sure of itself culturally. Only then will we have Legions of Decency and other Schlafly-esque activist groups to function as counterweights to a corrosive and exploitative culture.

Of course, as TR and company knew, if we seek a better and more protective American equilibrium, a lot will have to change -- and not just in the culture.

Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements, as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far away from beguiling pleasuredomes.

To be sure, we can't expect ever to solve all the troubles of human nature -- including the rage for fame that drives some youths from the boondocks. But we can at least bolster the bourgeois alternative to predatory Hefnerism.

In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent angels into their gilded dens of iniquity.

James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at . He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.


SOL • 2 days ago

"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements, as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland."

Neither of which will happen with the blue megacities having political control.

TruckFumpf SOL • 2 days ago

Oh Lord.

Even after a thoughtful piece like this, here come the endlessly partisan hacks...

Xanthippe2 • 2 days ago

"(T)here's always a need to protect women from wolves." It should be noted that boys who are sex-trafficked also fall under the Mann Act. This may not be clear from Wikipedia.

LeeInWV • 2 days ago

Wow! What a wonderful article! The compassion for the young victims just jumps off the screen along with the disgust at the corruption that has allowed this predator to damage so many lives over at least three decades.

No, the fact is that your dispassionate, detached, political assessment objectifies and dehumanizes the girls that were abused by Epstein and by the stupidly named "justice system" and reflects the obnoxious rot at the root of our society when it comes to the abuse of women and children.

When it comes right down to it, this doesn't really matter to you, it is just another political amusement.

disqus_t9AqZQH8T0 LeeInWV • a day ago

Hardly. It merely puts it into historical perspective. Epstein is but one of a long line of serial sexual predators through the ages.

LeeInWV disqus_t9AqZQH8T0 • a day ago

"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements, as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far away from beguiling pleasuredomes."

Liberal "social and cultural norming" (as in feminism, consent, discussion of sexual matters (gasp!) in the public sphere, #MeToo, etc.) is what is making a difference more because such things are encouraging victims and giving them support. The (cough) "justice" system needs reform so that rape kits get processed, victims are listened to instead of shamed, cases are actually investigated, rapists aren't let off because "he comes from a good family" etc. The Nevada Legislature with it's recent legislation is leading the way, because it has a female majority. THAT is what will change things FINALLY.

His "historical perspective" is just more of the same sh*t we have heard for millennia as are his prescriptions for solutions.

Eric • 2 days ago

A key conclusion of the article is that Epstein and other recent scandals about the abuse of power mean "issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed."

So if all regions and all social classes were equal, this would go away? First, gifts have always been and will always be distributed unequally, so this egalitarian utopia will never be obtained -- leading to the indefinite justification "we have more work to do" to force people and society into an unattainable intellectual ideal, and justifying endless injustices in the process. Second, the article itself points out that the Soviets who ostensibly pursued an egalitarian state had a famous abuser among the ranks of their political bosses (and likely had others we don't known about).

Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents -- the very unit of society that's been under unceasing attack for decades. Support the family and support small business which is responsible for something like 80% of new jobs created in the US. Then vigorously enforce the laws that are already on the books. A key problem with Epstein was the law was for years or decades not enforced against him, I strongly suspect because he had very highly placed political connections, probably several of which were sexually abusing young girls (and/or boys?) Epstein "introduced" them to. What amount of social engineering or experimentation is going to eliminate that kind of political corruption? I highly doubt any will. Once it's discovered, everyone involved should be prosecuted and exposed -- and any other cases of sex slavery rings discovered in the process likewise have all their members prosecuted & exposed.

kalendjay Eric • 2 days ago

Lavrenti Beria as the prescient symbol of Soviet Babbitry v. worldwide immorality! So was Ernst Rohm! Thank god for the KGB and SS as harbingers of true moral concern over sex abuse!

Stephen Ede Eric • a day ago

"Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents "

LMAO. Historically the family and biologoical parents were part and parcel in many of the deals involved with these trades.

Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely to come from within the family. I can't remember the family name but there was a family that made a big thing of their "Proper Christian Family" even while one son was abusing his younger sister/s and the Parents protected and shielded him.

I'll pass on that "protection" thank you.

JeffK from PA • 2 days ago

"In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up." - You almost lost me on that one. The Left is not normally 'indulgent on crime'. However, The Left is resistant to making 'immorality' (pot smoking, sodomy, gambling, gay marriage, etc) criminal, given how driving 'vice' underground and making it illegal has unintended consequences (such as creating the mafia and Latin American drug cartels) that are worse than 'the crime', but I decided to read on.

"That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed." - All in for that one. Glad to see your 'wokeness'. Please send a check to Bernie.

"In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent angels into their gilded dens of iniquity" - Like Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, Roy Moore, David Vitter, Dennis Hastert, Chris Collins, Duncan Hunter, Michael Grimm, and on and on.

The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged and actual wrongdoing. The Republicans, not so much, since they usually overlook all kinds of deviance if a politically expedient. Such as Tim Murphy from PA and Scott DesJarlais from TN, both married 'anti-abortion' zealots caught urging their mistresses to have abortions.

Sid Finster JeffK from PA • 2 days ago • edited

"The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged and actual wrongdoing."

Like Bill Clinton. The same Team D Wokemon champions who insisted that any form of sexual or romantic contact between a male supervisor and a female subordinate was by definition sexual harassment suddenly changed their tune when Bill Clinton was the supervisor.

Not only that, but they came up with the most hilarious tortured redefinitions of "perjury" in order to justify their hero.

For the record: I am not a Team R fan either, but I am not so naive as to think the problem is limited to one team.

JeffK from PA Sid Finster • 2 days ago

It is not. Bill Clinton was a cad. No doubt. But I find it very interesting that Juanita Broaddick recanted her allegations against Clinton when Ken Starr put her under oath.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

kalendjay JeffK from PA • 2 days ago

The only outrage Democrats will actually express over Epstein is to again tar and feather Trump in the usual fashion: Nibble at the toes of hapless political operatives and bureaucrats like Acosta, and then accuse the President of colluding in his own purported ignorance and self-enrichment.

SirMagpieDeCrow1 • 2 days ago • edited

There is an elephant in the room I think many conservatives are ignoring right now. A real big one...

"President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old hedge fund manager charged this week with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, were the only other attendees to a party that consisted of roughly two dozen women at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, according to a New York Times report."

"In 1992, the women were reportedly flown in for a "calendar girl" competition that was requested by Trump, The Times said.

"At the very first party, I said, 'Who's coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming,'" former Trump associate George Houraney reportedly said. "It was him and Epstein."

"I said, 'Donald, this is supposed to be a party with VIPs. You're telling me it's you and Epstein," he recalled saying."

"Houraney claimed to have warned Trump about Epstein's behavior and said the real estate tycoon did not heed his notice. Houraney, a businessman, reportedly said Trump "didn't care" about how he had to ban Epstein from his events."

https://www.businessinsider...

EliteCommInc. SirMagpieDeCrow1 • 2 days ago

This is an old elephant. It raised its head during the campaign and did not make much in the way of waves. Will it come back to bite the president today -- one hopes that its all rumor hearsay and gossip.

I am willing to grant that the president may have been a "masher" in his day. Whether that means relations with children is another matter.

Hunt Miller SirMagpieDeCrow1 • 2 days ago

Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island" or "Pedo Island" by the locals.

Guy Person Hunt Miller • 2 days ago

One is a retired politician. The other is the current POTUS. If Bill is guilty, lock him up. If Trump is guilty - we need to know ASAP and he can no longer be the president.

SirMagpieDeCrow1 • 2 days ago

If Jeffery Epstein is such a monster then what is one to make of a man who has been quoted as saying "You can do what ever you want, grab them by the *****." and then during a presidential debate shamelessly state "I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do."?

Sid Finster SirMagpieDeCrow1 • 2 days ago

Distasteful at best, and I am being charitable, but neither statement is a crime.

FWIW, I am not a trump fan.

IntelliWriter Sid Finster • 2 days ago

How about the rape and assault allegations?

EliteCommInc. SirMagpieDeCrow1 • 2 days ago

Laughing good grief --- First I have to get passed the suggestion that guys bragging nonsensically about their female conquests is the same hiring teens to for relations.

Good grief . . . these types of issues are ripe for hysterics.

excuse my politically incorrect suggestion of making the categorical distinctions

dukielouie • 2 days ago

I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc. Cultural Marxism is at play and next they will soften up and normalize pedophile. As far as the women's movement they are bitter progressives who on there Facebook moaning about how they make less money then men. Who is taking of the kids? There are no real men any more they have become boys!! Sex is every where and no one cares they all going along with the new world order!

FVCKDEPLORABLES dukielouie • 2 days ago

You forgot to mention our current thrice divorced President who cheats on his wife with porn stars and pays them to stay quiet. Strong moral leadership....

Hank Linderman • 2 days ago

Let the chips fall where they may, without limit, without special deals: expose them all.

Bill In Montgomey Hank Linderman • 18 hours ago

If this happened, my faith in the "rule of law" and in prosecutors and law enforcement treating everyone equally might be restored. But, alas, we all know this is not going to happen.

Connecticut Farmer • 2 days ago

"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."

Don't we all. But if history teaches us anything it teaches that the higher up the socioeconomic food chain we go, the more "flexible" that standard becomes.

So we'll see about Epstein--and all the other big shots who were in on this debauch.

Snikkerz Connecticut Farmer • a day ago

"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."

Does she want that single standard to apply to people that flaunt our laws by having, say, a clandestine and illegal email server that was used for classified correspondence?

SatirevFlesti • 2 days ago

Mr. Pinkerton apparently (like many) needs to learn what the definition of pedophile is (hint: It's doesn't mean any and all sex under he legal age of consent). However illegal (to say nothing of distasteful and immoral) Epstein's actions may have been, based on the claims I've seen, he is not a pedophile.

I also find it hard to believe that Clinton and others didn't know. Rumours of Epstein's proclivities, and his plane being called "Lolita Express," have been around for along-time, but Epstein has been protected by his connections and wealth. Clinton flew nearly 30 times on Epstein's private jet. Is he the only person in the world who never heard the stories about him? What did he know and when did he know it?

JonF311 SatirevFlesti • 2 days ago • edited

If you're asking that question about Clinton- a 90s has-been politician whose own party has moved on past him, then I hope you're also asking it about the current president who was also a bosom buddy to Epstein.

Hunt Miller JonF311 • 2 days ago • edited

According to flight manifests, Trump flew one time, from New York to Palm Beach, on Epstein's plane. Clinton took at least 26 international trips on the Lolita Express, including 18 trips to Epstein's private Caribbean island, where he supposedly had dozens of underage women from Latin America kept. The locals referred to it at 'Orgy Island" and "Pedo Island". We're not exactly comparing apples to apples here, are we?

polistra24 • 2 days ago

Nope, won't bring anyone together.

Compare the Mueller soap opera. The characters in that story were sleazy international fixers and blackmailers who worked for everyone. Same type as Epstein. They worked for KGB, CIA, Clinton, Trump, Mossad, Saudi. Despite the universality of the crimes, Mueller meticulously "saw" only the crimes that involved Trump and Russia. FBI always works that way. Any accusation or evidence that doesn't fit the predefined story disappears.

Same thing will happen here.

u.r.tripping polistra24 • 2 days ago

Like the film Shooter- "Maybe I should wait for your report before I remember".

JonF311 polistra24 • a day ago

Muller had a specific investigatory mission. He was not empowered to look into every government scandal since Alexander Hamilton was blackmailed by Maria Reynolds.

FL_Cottonmouth • 2 days ago • edited

Part of what doomed the post-WWII "Right" was the "fusionism" between conservatism and capitalism. While the latter got real policy results, the former was merely pandered to during elections but otherwise ignored. As a result, leftists and centrists mistakenly came to believe that being "right-wing" means being a corporate shill lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and pay for it by cutting programs for the poor.

At the same time, as Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness."

A recent essay in Law & Liberty summarizes the contradictions at the heart of fusionism:

Many traditionalists (such as Russell Kirk) resisted fusionism for placing too much emphasis on markets and not enough on the conservative commitment "to religious belief, to national loyalty, to established rights in society, and to the wisdom of our ancestors." And many libertarians (such as F.A. Hayek) explicitly rejected conservatism for being too nationalistic and hostile toward open systems.

If conservatives want any political future in this country, then they're going to have to "de-fuse," so to speak, with capitalism, which has been exploiting their support in order to advance policies against their own interests and values. If "Woke Capitalism" isn't the final straw, then what will it take? Conservatives could learn a lot from the Progressive Movement of the 1890s-1920s, which despite its name was far more conservative than the David-Frenchist National Review is nowadays. Indeed, the Progressives' reformist playbook (which recognized that the rapid changes brought by industrialization, immigration, and urbanization had caused corruption, poverty, and vice) could and should be dusted off for today.

As far as Epstein goes, I'm rather pessimistic that he'll ever be punished and that the public will ever learn the full extent of his crimes. While Nancy Pelosi's daughter may be principled (and good for her), the fact that so many wealthy and powerful people may be incriminated is precisely why he'll be let off easy and the evidence will be covered up, just like last time. I have zero confidence in our justice system, particularly in the hyper-politicized SDNY.

u.r.tripping • 2 days ago • edited

If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many more important people are involved than those we know. Anyone involved would be terrified; they'll have to break someone to get the facts. As someone who was almost abducted at age 9, I say get on it.

Steve Coats • 2 days ago

The problem is men behaving badly.

Sid Finster Steve Coats • a day ago

Ghislaine Maxwell is a dude, too?

Jake Jones • 2 days ago

Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this isn't yet another part of the coup attempt.

Millie Vanilli Jake Jones • 2 days ago

There was a lawsuit by Mike Cernovich to unseal the court records which was granted by the judge. That' why he was arrested

JonF311 Jake Jones • a day ago

Knart may be moribund, but someone found a blue light special on tinfoil hats.

Maddock631 • 2 days ago

Twisted sisters will do what they do with or without social disparities. All you can do is bury them when you catch them. If the rich and famous get caught up, no ones fault but their own.

jimbino • 2 days ago

The Mann Act mainly served to enforce Roman Catholic ideas about marriage's being somehow special. The Bible offers no such thing as an example of a religious marriage, whether Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, unless it be that of Job.

JonF311 jimbino • a day ago

So Protestants and atheists are A-OK with shanghaing young girls into prostitution?

Sid Finster • 2 days ago

(Unfortunately) there is no such thing as law. There is only context.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/...

kalendjay • 2 days ago

You expect a free pass for this term paper theory that downright American types are going to unite to stop sexual predation, and their brains will swirl with reminiscences of St. Gregory and Sen. Mann?

I am unaware that Chaplin's career was "effectively over" after his sex trial. Chaplin made "Monsieur Verdoux" in 1947 in good time after the modern Bluebeard of France, Marcel Petiot made headlines (this predator swindled Jews of safe passage money out of France, poisoned them, and burned their bodies in his home. No time of reckoning for France or Francophiles here). Five years later he released "Limelight", which could be called a loving tribute to vaudeville and silent film at the same time (Buster Keaton appeared, and it is said that many omitted segments were his finest hour in the sound era. Note that financially and at box office, Keaton was as ruined and burned out as countless others, but was in the end a hard working trouper who even made it to Samuel Beckett!). Chaplin flagged thereafter, but made films at exactly the pace he wished, as characterized by the slow linger from "Modern Times" to "The Great Dictator".

Errol Flynn on the other hand was boosted by his sex scandal as alleged with a 15 year old. His release "They Died With Their Boots On" made reference to the allegation that Flynn was naked except for a pair of boots. And remember the original Hollywood Confidential scandal that rounded up dozens of celebrities including Lizbeth Scott in a prostitution ring? All forgotten.

So if your going to make big analogies between Hollywood, celebrity, and yet another paroxysm of soon to evaporate Puritan righteousness, at least know what you're talking about.

For the record, I believe that if Epstein punched 8 years above his weight in his choice of femmes, he might never have been caught.

Edgar Lane • 2 days ago

The article is way to long and I read the first paragraph and after the words "The sober-minded New York Times" I jumped to the comments. The headline was enough for me...I agree, Lock Him Up.

CapitalistRadical • a day ago

Trump was a hero here. When Epstien was making inappropriate advances to young girls Mar a Lago, Trump kicked him out and banned him for life.

Trump also gave other evidence and information he had gleaned to prosecutors during the first Epstien trial.

We should point this out as often as possible because liberal media is trying to smear Trump by including his name next to Epstien in every article.