Softpanorama
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Who Rules America ?

A slightly skeptical view on the US political establishment and foreign policy

If Ronald Reagan was America's neo-Julius Caesar, his adopted son was the first George Bush (just as J.C. adopted Augustus). And look what THAT progeny wrought. I fully expect that over the next century, no fewer than seven Bushes will have run or become president (mimicking the Roman Caesarian line). Goodbye, American Republic.

From review of Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia by Gore Vidal

Skepticism -> Political Skeptic

News Neoliberalism Recommended books Recommended Links Libertarian Philosophy Neoliberal Brainwashing -- Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism
National Security State Key Myths of Neoliberalism Big Uncle is Watching You The Iron Law of Oligarchy Color revolutions Cold War II Two Party System as Polyarchy
Fifth Column of Neoliberal Globalization Predator state Corporatism Elite Theory Neo-conservatism Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers
Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Demonization of Putin Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia Pathological Russophobia of the US elite Compradors vs. national bourgeoisie
Resurgence of neofascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization Ukraine: From EuroMaydan to EuroAnschluss Civil war in Ukraine Fuck the EU Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014 Russian Ukrainian Gas Wars Neoliberalism and Christianity
Anti Trump Hysteria Anti-globalization movement Neoliberal corruption DNC emails leak Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization Disaster capitalism IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement
Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Media-Military-Industrial Complex New American Militarism Ethno-lingustic Nationalism American Exceptionalism The Deep State Obama: a yet another Neocon
Neoliberal war on reality In Foreign Events Coverage Guardian Presstitutes Slip Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment Corruption of Regulators Ayn Rand and her Objectivism Cult  Neo-Theocracy as a drive to simpler society American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition
Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Groupthink Crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite Deception as an art form Mayberry Machiavellians Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers War and Peace Quotes
Famous quotes of John Kenneth Galbraith Talleyrand quotes Otto Von Bismarck Quotes Kurt Vonnegut Quotes Somerset Maugham Quotes George Carlin Propaganda Quotes
Overcomplexity of society Paleoconservatism Non-Interventionism   Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

FDR. speech after the election (1936)

polyarchy: A system where the participation of masses of people is limited to voting among one or another representatives of the elite in periodic elections. Between elections the masses are now expected to keep quiet, to go back to life as usual while the elite make decisions and run the world until they can choose between one or another elite another four years later. So polyarchy is a system of elite rule, and a system of elite rule that is little bit more soft-core than the elite rule that we would see under a military dictatorship. But what we see is that under a polyarchy the basic socio-economic system does not change, it does not become democratized.

▬William I. Robinson, Behind the Veil, Minute 1:29:15

 

This site is very skeptical as for the viability of Neoliberalism as a social system and had distinct pro "New Deal" capitalism bias. You are warned.

And yes, my firends, you are living under neoliberal regime, althouth this name is not mationed in MSM, due to some kind of "silence" pact ;-). Due to the size an introduction was converted to a separate page Who Rules America


 


Top updates

Softpanorama Switchboard
Softpanorama Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

It's easy to pretend to be a great strategist,
while sitting on the top of the hill,
at the safe distance from the battle in the valley

Shota Rustavelli(1172–1216)

[Jan 22, 2017] Obama Admits Gap in Russian Hack Case – Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
"... "the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked ..."
"... He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks." ..."
"... Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap. ..."
"... Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders. ..."
"... "In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media. ..."
"... "Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking' story." ..."
"... For whatever reason Obama finally decided to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record. ..."
"... Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good. ..."
"... Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law ..."
"... The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and bad) lie as naturally as breathing. ..."
"... In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. ..."
"... Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents. He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs." ..."
"... Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents do and speaks of making it even bigger. ..."
"... His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries simply don't behave the way he proposes. ..."
"... The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned, and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich. ..."
"... The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried, elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy. Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power. Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house. ..."
"... Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government. ..."
"... Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks). Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind and generous for this kind of behavior. ..."
"... The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research. ..."
"... The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow. ..."
Jan 20, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The hole in the U.S. intelligence community's "high confidence" about Russia "hacking" Democratic emails has always been who gave the material to WikiLeaks, as President Obama admitted, notes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.

Does the Russian government hack, as many other governments do? Of course. Did it hack the emails of the Democratic National Committee? Almost certainly, though it was likely not alone in doing so. In the Internet age, hacking is the bread and butter of intelligence agencies. If Russian intelligence did not do so, this would constitute gross misfeasance, especially since the DNC was such easy pickings and the possibility of gaining important insights into the U.S. government was so high. But that is not the question.

It was WikiLeaks that published the very damaging information, for example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remains to be demonstrated is that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community doesn't know.

At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: "the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked ." [Emphasis added}

It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs. He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks."

Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence about the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap.

WikiLeaks Account

As I suggested to RT viewers right after the last press conference, the reason WikiLeaks might have been "not witting" could be that it was quite sure it was not a "conduit" for "hacking" by the Russians or anyone else. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has stated that the Russian government was not the source and it's significant that President Obama stopped short of contradicting him. It is also clear that WikiLeaks, in the past, has obtained LEAKED information from U.S. whistleblowers, such as Chelsea Manning.

Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders.

After the Jan. 18 press conference - what Murray called the "Stunning Admission from Obama on Wikileaks" - Murray wrote:

"In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media.

"Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking' story."

So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate ad nauseam .

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Sally Snyder , January 20, 2017 at 6:57 pm

Here is an interesting look at an essay written by Barack Obama when he was a student at Columbia University:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/01/a-young-barack-obama-and-his-ironic.html

It is so ironic that he is now the only POTUS to serve his full term in a state of war, yet another inconsistency in his persona.

Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 8:05 pm

Thanks for the link Sally Snyder. They can't be the same person. Can they?

Zachary Smith , January 20, 2017 at 7:33 pm

"So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate ad nauseam."

Not me. In my opinion Obama has been "playing nice" for his final few days and hours in the hope citizens and historians will make that "leap" and conclude he was a nice guy at heart after all.

The Moon of Alabama site had this viewpoint:

The DNC emails "that were leaked" – not "hacked" or "stolen" but "leaked".

One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?

That blogger could be right and I might be wrong. For whatever reason Obama finally decided to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record.

Robert E. Moran , January 20, 2017 at 7:40 pm

William Binney was right. A leak, not a hacked was done to the DNC.

Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Thank you Ray McGovern and The VIPS for keeping us informed about this most important event. It has the potential to expose much wrongdoing affecting our fragile democracy. Watching it being "played out" in real time is a great asset of this remarkable site where truth and decent conversation are carried out on a daily basis

backwardsevolution , January 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm

Ray McGovern – another great article! Keep up the good work. Can't wait to find out what Trump says to the CIA tomorrow. Maybe Trump needs to take along Craig Murray.

Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm

backwardsevolution, please see my comment below about Craig Murray.

Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm

That would be awesome! It won't happen of course. But it would be awesome.

Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 20, 2017 at 8:37 pm

what i find truly fascinating is that nobody is giving any attention to the FACT that the DNC cheated to make Hillary the nominee in the general elections!! That is not hacking or leaking, it is CHEATING which should be treated accordingly ..even B.S. himself, should have raised hell about that but he lined up like a sheep dog behind Hillary go figure

Joe Tedesky , January 21, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Ah Doctor now you are talking. The hacking, leaking , and anything else along those line keep us from talking about the real problem. That problem being Hillary's cheating. Good that you brought it up.

Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:13 pm

The question then, is, Did those fools kill two birds with one stone? Or did they flub twice and have the contents of two eggs on each of their faces? They thought that they could count on the foundation of the doctrinal system, and people's having been marinated in it's bullcrap, when they tossed out the 'Putin did it line'. They did all the evil that Wikileaks revealed and only added to it with that nonsense that much (most?) of the public now disbelieves.

Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:21 pm

I have not had the time to look into this the way I want to and I regret that. It's not just that I haven't had the time to examine something important and interesting. I have been misled by Craig Murray's own account, not intentionally I'm sure. Neverthless. I took from one of his blog posts the idea that he met the leaker, full stop. Then, as I perused comments by others (Off Guardian I believe), I realized that it wasn't that simple. Craig met someone acting as a courier for the leaker or leakers, apparently. The difference is not unimportant. Craig can say that he knows that the info that Wikileaks obtained here was not 'hacked', based on his having received it from the leaker or his or her courier. That's fair. But if that's how it went down, then I don't want to say that Murray 'met' the leaker. I wish people would be honest. It's important.

Yes, l know all about the other stuff. William Binney's explanations for why it wasn't a hack etc.. That's all good. But it's not my focus here. I was misled and then I misled others and my credibility could be impacted by something like this. If my efforts to educate others is important, then that credibility problem is important.

bob , January 20, 2017 at 8:40 pm

It appears to me Barack and Hillary simply conspired to destroy Bernie's candidacy and populism. It is and always forever shall be about cash.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia infinitum.

Our military is an ocean of unaccounted, bloody cash. One Nation Under God. I can tell you this.

I guarded B-52's, F-4 Phantoms, C-5 A's, the secret Black Sheep Squadron of C-130's with no external insignias jammed with electronics to spy on European nations etcetera. No one in their right mind can send these gigantic machines to bomb defenseless little girls who can't even see them they fly so high and be sane. Toys for the insatiably insane. Absolute lunacy and we glorify it because we're trained like rats.

Sam F , January 21, 2017 at 7:33 am

Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good.

Aristotle warned of these tyrants over democracy, causing foreign wars to create fear and to demand power as false protectors, and to accuse their opponents of disloyalty. Our Constitutional Convention failed to protect the tools of democracy, mass media and elections, from the economic concentrations that did not then exist. The US needs constitutional amendments to restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited registered individual contributions, and to improve checks and balances.

John , January 20, 2017 at 8:45 pm

Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law

Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:26 pm

The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and bad) lie as naturally as breathing.

Presidents' lies definitely do more damage than little people's lies, not to excuse any of it. (I don't lie, big or white)

To get an idea how much of liar Barack Obama is (which was known early on; See the book "Hopeless – Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion" edited by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank) just give Seymour Hersh's book "The Killing Of Osama bin Laden" a read.

The book is unbalanced, in that it's as much about Syria (and the lies told, and not told, about that) as it is about bin Laden. But it's very good, although Hersh, who isn't as independent of the establishment as some believe him to be, unfathomably believes that Obamacare was a plus for Obama's legacy.

Bill , January 20, 2017 at 8:52 pm

So you're almost certain that the Russian government hacked the DNC? Based on what, a guess? The whole story has had a bad smell to it from the beginning. Assumptions don't cut it, we need proof.

Bill Bodden , January 20, 2017 at 10:07 pm

In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material.

If "they" had practiced a daily habit of reading Consortium News "they" would have known how Wikileaks got the information.

Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:11 am

No US citizen would have taken that into account they are emotive they do not vote on evidence otherwise there would have been two different choices.

Tom , January 20, 2017 at 10:53 pm

Eh idk about this. There have been reports that the intel community already identified the russians who gave wikileaks the data. It just hasnt been disclosed in the unclassified reports. And what obama said there has to be looked at carefully. I dont think he's disspelling the narrative, i think he's just saying that Wikileaks might not have known they were being used by Russia as a conduit and means of getting the data published. Who knows though

Charlie M. , January 20, 2017 at 11:11 pm

Bro. Ray, thank you for giving us clarity. We will need more of it. Keep up the Good Fight.

paul , January 21, 2017 at 12:47 am

hi, the hack is easy to figure. mr. PODESTA used a soft easy password so that anyone could hack it. he wanted people to find the clinton email with DEPLORABLES in it. so that it would go viral. he regarded it as having racial tones & he was pissed off at hillary about it. sanders voters were blacks gays & hispanics etc. OBAMA & all the democrats know this but they wont mention it because it reflects on them. i-e therefor /ergo russia the scapegoat bogeyman.or the truth would make them look foolish.–beware the TALENT ACT /circa january 2017 .

BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , January 21, 2017 at 1:34 am

Great piece, Ray. What I especially appreciated were your comments on Obama's understated great skill in using language.

For example, you write:

"It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs."

and later:

"the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent."

Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents. He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs."

Great job, Ray. Showing that Obama not only was screwing around with innuendo on the issue of Russian hacking, but that Obama's been screwing around with our minds beginning with his statements as a Senator and continuing right until his most recent statements as POTUS.

Joe , January 21, 2017 at 3:28 am

Thank god the election is over and it's time to change wall-hangings and furniture. Civilians also get a change in themes that have preoccupied journalists, such as the Democrats' acute case of McCarthyism.

But now that there is a Republican in the WH, what are you guys going to write about? It's been getting a little old .

Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:05 am

How would the 2017 Australia of the year possibly be involved isn't he under house arrest in London?

Herman , January 21, 2017 at 4:07 am

Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents do and speaks of making it even bigger.

His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries simply don't behave the way he proposes.

On education reform he will find himself pilloried for trying to destroy public education, and suggesting that parents should have choices will be derided as a violation of our Constitution and its freedom of religion First Amendment and other charges piled upon those.

Touching preferential treatment because of race will be shouted out of the room.

In addition to those barriers to getting anything done there is the calls for America first, which is fine except it must include a willingness to deal constructively with world problems. For example, it is disappointing when talking about borders and immigrants, he did not connect our role in the destruction of Middle East countries with the mass exodus from the region. Why not point to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, even on the borders of Russia and China as places where such extremism exists and changing our own behavior is important to combat it.

On health care, good luck. Obama gave us something which setting the move toward universal coverage back years by creating a monster which helped those who see universal care as a threat to their profits and power. Announcing a plan for universal coverage is far removed from the vision Trump creates for our country of greater "freedom" and unleashing the constructive power of free enterprise. Universal health coverage and opening up the health system to innovation could work together but doubtful that Trump would have the power to make it happen even if he saw it as helping the people.

So Trump, already pilloried, marginalized and boxed in, will have a hard time getting anything done, and the interests that oppose anything progressive will not hesitate to unite, scratching each others' back and help each other defeat whatever Trump proposes.

Trump the maverick, Trump the reformer. Would it be so.

Anon , January 21, 2017 at 7:20 am

The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned, and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich.

Let's refuse to play the corrupt DNC game of distraction from the email contents. The story here is that the DNC is controlled by big money and foreign powers Israel and KSA.

There is no other story on this subject, and this constant harping on the distraction story suggests complicity in the diversion of public attention from the DNC corruption.

fudmier , January 21, 2017 at 9:56 am

The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried, elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy. Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power. Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits.

Democracy demands an inverse relationship between government actors closet to "centralized power" and the "privilege" of secrecy or privacy.

evelync , January 21, 2017 at 10:46 am

you're absolutely correct, fudmier. Bernie was trusted by Dems, Independents and Republicans because he spoke the plain truth about our sorry state of affairs. He would've won.

The DNC, corrupt, dishonest, did not serve the large majority of people in their own party.

They conspired to disrupt Bernie's candidacy from the beginning starting with the first primary in the Southeast when they tried to discredit Bernie with that letter from the DNC chairs of the southern block.

It is important for VIPS to demand the proof of the so called hack.

Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house.

Joel Kabakov , January 21, 2017 at 11:31 am

Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government.

D5-5 , January 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks). Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind and generous for this kind of behavior.

Mark Thomason , January 21, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Thank you. Good points well expressed. This has been buried by those who know better, as partisanship has overtaken truth.

Trump bashing is an expression of the shock of 9:00 pm Election Night returns that were "impossible." It is the political expression of Hillary's drunken ravings that night.

We see Stages of Grief in place of intelligence reports.

Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:55 pm

backwardsevolution, (Responding on Saturday). I thought you'd appreciate what Craig Murray had to say about President Trump today and note the commentary because it's primarily European

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk

Bill Bodden , January 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm

Thank you, Bob, for that excellent link.

evelync , January 21, 2017 at 2:40 pm

Yes, thank you Bob!

Craig Murray's solid piece is very welcome!!
So glad that there are well informed and honest writers determined to reveal the difference between our words and our actions as a country.

elmerfudzie , January 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm

Ray, the media propaganda that signaled another world war has now passed? I'd love to think so FDR was quoted as saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time" and IKE's, now famous or rather infamous (he did nothing to stop the momentum) warning about the size and growth of our military industrial congressional complex.

Yet, politicians and citizen proles alike seem to dismiss these words of wisdom. Humanity continues to be dragged towards an inevitable disaster.

Trump announced that he will INCREASE military spending while rebuilding our infrastructure?-already he's BS-ing us.

The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research.

The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow.

It is here we will find the current societal Mission of George Orwell's, Ministry of Truth(s), that is, all three branches of our federal government.

Information gatekeepers of the new Ministry of Propaganda have assumed the shape of, and taken full control of, most of the Western Occident cable and newsprint media. These facts serve to amplify my WW III fears and warnings. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote: "The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses." This same oratory is the "new" yet at the same time, terribly old, politic of the new POTUS.

[Jan 22, 2017] CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which drive the US foreign policy

Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
A Boy Named Sue : , January 21, 2017 at 12:50 AM
>Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.

FFS, grow up. I take back my positive comments about you.

Do you think he asked for it?

Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba.

ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 04:23 AM
Yes, the day he became CinC he should have given the order: "mobilize the transports, evacuate the forces".

That was too hard, it would have reduced the plunder his backers take. It was against his hidden neocon!

Obama is responsible for as much evil, fraud, waste and murder as W and immensely more than Bill Clinton.

The Old Testament warning: "Let them stand the judgement".

libezkova -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 09:43 PM
"Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba."

You are trying to change the subject. While in relations with Iran and Cube Obama did achieve some progress, this not the whole story and this is not a major story. The major story is as following: in relations with Russia Obama was a very dangerous neocon warmonger, who actually put even more dangerous warmonger Hillary in charge of his foreign policy for a long four years period. And who has a track record in Ukraine and Syria which is the track record of a typical neocon.

Both Russia and the USA nuclear forces are now on high alert, while you typing your staff. That means that if something happens (and the sophistication of modern computers chances are higher then before) leaders of the country have less then 20 min to prevent nuclear war. Less for Russia as the USA got way too close and literally encircled Russia. Do you see the problem ? This Nobel Peace Price winner does not give Russia enough time for measured response. Is not his a warmonger with a typical neoconservative ambitions?

This is what recently Professor Steven Cohen told us. He think that this the current situation is close or even worse then the Cuban Nuclear Crisis.

He also told a very interesting thing: it is wrong to consider CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which can be even in fight with each other and with Pentagon and FBI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMyHJJrdDw

And they are really ready to put the world on fire for their narrow goals (such as neocon goal of world dominance; or deposing Assad in Syria).

[Jan 22, 2017] Can a new geopolitical alliance arise consisting of Russia, the new ottoman and the US.

Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 21, 2017 at 07:28 AM
Not in touch with Tunis.

The rest of spring time for jihadis are known bollux: Libya, Egypt*, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan...... Lebanon outside spring time for jihadis it is under Shiite wraps not so bollux.

*CIA and generals jailed the jihadis to keep Camp David bribes coming.

JF -> Ben Groves... , January 21, 2017 at 08:21 AM
I am terribly worried that a move of the US embassy to Jerusalem is part if a set of provocations leading to US military interventions to eliminate the threats as this group defines them to be (radical islamists). This would immediately make the US and Russian oil industries more valuable as the middle east becomes enflamed.

A new axis arises: Russia, the new ottoman and the US.

I just cant help thinking that this is the plan, you will be measured on your patriotism and allegiances here. Dismaying.

EMichael -> JF... , January 21, 2017 at 08:29 AM
I know you and I both hope you are wrong.

But it does go hand in hand with this "America First" schtick.

"But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

― Hermann Göring

im1dc -> JF... , January 21, 2017 at 08:41 AM
I don't think you are wrong.
Peter K. -> JF... , January 21, 2017 at 09:32 AM
"I am terribly worried that a move of the US embassy to Jerusalem is part if a set of provocations leading to US military interventions to eliminate..."

You could be right, but most of Trump's campaign talk was isolationist, if contradictory. The Iraq adventurism was a disaster, etc.

He doesn't like diplomacy, like the Iran deal, so there could be more brinkmanship which is dangerous. But a war would be very unpopular. Again he may not care since war could be used as a distraction.

Authoritarian allies like the Arab dictatorships are happy in that a Trump administration won't criticize them about human rights violations or freedom of the press. Russia and China will be happy about that as well.

Trump is basically a real-estate developer/tax fraud etc. I don't see war as a foregone conclusion.

JF -> Peter K.... , January 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM
He used the word 'to protect' in his inaugural. That is definitely not isolationism especially after declaring that he will eliminate radical islam from the earth (close to a direct quote, I'm pretty sure).

And isn't he the one who said during the campaign that we ought to just sieze the oilfields?

So just provoke a few things, a few will do, then announce the alliance wuth russia to settle this in the region, once and for all, so we are protected.

Who indeed will step up and say no, they will not do this type of thing?

ilsm -> JF... , January 21, 2017 at 11:53 AM
Moscow-Ankara-Washington axis........

How about a Beijing-Moscow-Berlin axis, what have the Turks got to offer?

US dumb* to ignore and be left out!

*neocon PNAC bat$#1^ crazy

JohnH -> libezkova... , January 21, 2017 at 12:47 AM
Putin is just as guilty intervening in Ukraine-ian affairs as the US. Hillary Clinton and Putin don't like each other and that is just the way it is. But her beliefs there represent the bulk of America including Republican voters.

If you don't think Donald Trump is not going to have wars or invent something like 911 to support his "soft" fascism, shame on you. Nobody is trusting anything. His supporters got their ass kicked by the black bloc today, very underreported by the media(who said it was just protests gone "violent").

ilsm -> JohnH... , January 21, 2017 at 04:19 AM
Clinton was to solve global warming with nuclear winter.

Sheesh! read Obama's neocon anthem aka the speech he gave in Stockholm where he conned the Nobel committee.

Putin's 'interventions' are minimalist and defensive, the Clinton neocons would push NATO up to Smolensk with feckless disregard for any entity in the way of US empire.

Neoliberal is starting wars because the empire sees "unjust peace" as excuse to engage with shock and awe despite the dbody count.

Clinton would be mobilizing to crush Russia using the exploded the image of a few suffering Balts to tilt with nuclear winter.

JohnH -> JohnH... , January 21, 2017 at 07:06 AM
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has questions the whole "Putin did it" narrative, demanding evidence: "we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the "intelligence" evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact "certitude" – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/another_demand_for_russian_hacking_20170119

But this JohnH-come-lately drinks whatever Kool-Aid the establishment gives him...

JohnH -> JohnH... , January 21, 2017 at 07:16 AM
Obama starts to walk back his claim that 'Putin did it:'
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/20/obama-admits-gap-in-russian-hack-case/
ilsm -> JohnH... , January 21, 2017 at 07:29 AM
Con artist, the super party hack*.

*low techie

im1dc -> JohnH... , January 21, 2017 at 08:45 AM
When ilsm agrees with you then you are wrong.

Russia did hack to influence the election. Whether they were decisive or not no one can say.

More likely imo Comey's violation of the Hatch Act 6 days before the Election knocking Hillary's Poll lead from 12 to 5 cost her the election.

Comey will pay for his treachery.

Accept and move on.

JohnH -> im1dc... , January 21, 2017 at 09:59 AM
"Does the Russian government hack, as many other governments do? Of course. Did it hack the emails of the Democratic National Committee? Almost certainly, though it was likely not alone in doing so. In the Internet age, hacking is the bread and butter of intelligence agencies. If Russian intelligence did not do so, this would constitute gross misfeasance, especially since the DNC was such easy pickings and the possibility of gaining important insights into the U.S. government was so high. But that is not the question.
It was WikiLeaks that published the very damaging information, for example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remains to be demonstrated is that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community doesn't know."
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/20/obama-admits-gap-in-russian-hack-case/

Democrats want to blame Russia for their ineptitude and their lousy candidate.

Democrats want to blame Russia for exposing the DNC's rigging of the primaries...by blaming Russia for rigging the general elections [abject hypocrisy.]

Neither Democrats nor the intelligence services know who gave the documents to WikiLeaks or, if they do, they don't want you to know who it was.

ilsm -> im1dc... , January 21, 2017 at 12:11 PM
im1dc,

You don't have to agree, we have diverse experiences.

when did Podesta and Wasserman Schultz, those crooks, become "the election". Even if it was the Russians!!!

As to Comey: let the new AG do his or her duty on the crimes of a cabinet officer, with a jury and judge.

My training and experience suggest Clinton will do time.

I am reminded of Job38-41: "Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?....."

Chatham House Rule -> libezkova... , January 21, 2017 at 09:39 AM

reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the
"

Her victims are our cousins. Each of us emanates from the same living cell. Within Minkowski-time-space we remain connected as one animal. No!

We cannot open up our American hospitality to suspected terrorists. What we can do is open up our homeland to foreigners who are moving over to make space for her victims. Ceu

When South Africa takes in Syrians, we can take in an equal number of South Africans or other foreigners who are demonstrating their love for our cousins, our cousins now victimized by our own Mama-War-Bucks. Tell me something!

Was the HRC-email-server moved to her private home so that SWH, Slick Willie himself could control the World? Hey!

Americans

are not
blind
!

El Chapo Guapo -> Chatham House Rule... , January 21, 2017 at 11:04 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space#/media/File:8-cell-simple.gif

[Jan 22, 2017] As Trump takes office, Mass. manufacturers talk globalization

Notable quotes:
"... The strongest advocates for bringing offshore manufacturing back to the United States acknowledge automation's effect on the workforce but say it doesn't negate the need for more domestic factories. Harry Mosser, founder of the Reshoring Institute, which encourages companies to bring manufacturing operations back to the United States, said that even a highly automated factory is better for workers than no factory at all. ..."
"... These days it is more about planned/welcomed obsolescence - the product basically works, but some critical parts may be low grade, making it break after a while so you have to buy something new. This also affects "brands that used to be good". ..."
"... The internet also has played a role - online stores could underbid brick and mortar, then the latter had to cheapen and cut their offerings, driving more customers to the internet, etc. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : January 21, 2017 at 05:04 AM

As Trump takes office, Mass. manufacturers talk globalization
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/01/20/trump-takes-office-mass-manufacturers-talk-globalization/M3KFU50bFaKQfcr83SeowN/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - Adam Vaccaro - January 20, 2017

SOUTHBRIDGE - A mainstay of Massachusetts manufacturing since the late 1800s, the Hyde Group tool company made a big leap overseas in 2010, when it outsourced production of its mass market putty knives and wallpaper blades to China.

"At heart, we're manufacturers. It was the hardest thing for us to do, us in a fourth-generation family," said Bob Clemence, vice president of sales at Hyde Group, and great-grandson of the man who bought the company in the 1890s. "In order for us to stay in business and still employ people, we had to move our low-end business off-shore. It really was like a stab in the heart."

But the cost advantage of China has been steadily shrinking; it's now 40 percent cheaper to make the tools there than in Southbridge. And if that continues to fall, then Hyde might be able to help President Donald Trump fulfill a central campaign promise: bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

"Forty percent [savings] is a huge number to overcome," Clemence said. "We've determined that if it's 20 percent or less, we're going to do it domestically."

As Trump cajoles American companies into returning production to US soil, experiences like Hyde's illustrate the complex, multifaceted decisions manufacturers face as they choose where to build their products.

The president has talked of using lower taxes, fewer regulations, and higher tariffs to bring about a renaissance of American manufacturing. But for factory owners, it's not simply about cheaper labor. The costs of energy and raw materials, the emergence of global competitors, and the location and demands of suppliers and customers all weigh on these decisions, a myriad of cross currents that will make it difficult to fix the factory economy with just a few bold prescriptions.

"It's going to be not an easy job," said Enrico Moretti, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, who predicted that even if factories stay in the United States, production will be increasingly automated. "I'm not sure there is one explicit policy, a magic switch, that executive power in Washington can switch to retain jobs in the US."

In the eyes of factory owners, singling them out won't necessarily solve the problem. Some say they were forced to move production overseas by their customers. At Hyde, it was the retail stores that carry its tools demanding lower prices.

"It doesn't matter what they say about made in the USA, it's all about price," Clemence said. "They've taken some basic items and said there are commodity products and said, 'We only buy them by price.' "

In Norwood, the Manufacturing Resource Group opened a second factory just across the US border in Mexico in 2011 because customers demanded cheaper versions of its cable assemblies, wire harnesses, and other electric components.

"The decision to open in Mexico wasn't ours," MRG president Joe Prior said. "We were told that, 'You need to have a low-cost option, or we're not going to be able to do business with you.' "

The Norwood and Mexico factories nearly mirror one another, each employing about 70 people, with mostly the same equipment and capabilities. The Norwood factory still accounts for most of its business, as MRG's local customers are willing to pay more for quicker shipping and customer service. But other customers simply want a cheaper product - wages at the Mexico factory are a quarter the cost of Norwood, while health care costs about 90 percent lower.

Prior said if Trump does impose a high tariff on imported products, as he has threatened, then that cost would probably be shouldered by customers of the Mexican factory.

"If there is a tax, it just has to be passed on to our customers and they'd have to make a decision about whether it makes sense for them anymore," he said.

Since many US companies sell to customers around the world, a high tariff might bring some production back home - but at a cost. For Eastern Acoustic Works, that might mean losing international customers for its sound equipment.

The Whitinsville company is closing its factory here, laying off 27 workers and outsourcing most production of speaker systems and subwoofers to a contract manufacturer in China. There were just too many competitors around the world making similar equipment for Eastern Acoustic to justify charging higher prices for its US-made products, general manager TJ Smith said. Eastern Acoustic will instead concentrate on new sales, marketing, and R&D initiatives, creating white-collar jobs that will help it grow.

"Running a factory takes a lot of focus and energy," Smith said. "We have to ask ourselves, what are we good at? What do we want to call our competencies?"

Smith said Eastern Acoustic might be forced to bring production back to the United States if the Trump tariff goes into effect. However, that move might also prompt the company to drop its international clients - Asia accounts for 30 percent of Eastern Acoustic's sales - because the US-made products wouldn't be competitive in overseas markets.

"It would split my business up too much, so I couldn't support" an overseas factory, Smith said. "For our scale, I would lean toward [choosing] the domestic market at this point because that's what I know and I'm closer to it."

But the higher tariffs might help Eastern Acoustic in another way - by raising prices on products its European competitors are selling to US customers. "So that might increase my near-term opportunity domestically," Smith said.

Raw materials, such as steel or energy, is another area Trump would have to address. Foreign steel, especially, is so much cheaper that it is very difficult for manufacturers not to use. But Trump's promise to promote more domestic oil and gas production could be a major boon to factories.

For example, US companies are benefiting from very cheap domestic natural gas; that's especially important in processing industries that use a lot of chemicals in their production. ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 21, 2017 at 05:08 AM
Trump wants to fight the effects of trade, but what about automation?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/01/20/trump-wants-fight-effects-trade-but-what-about-automation/qYt2WjQo4VAXWRWCYkfNeK/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - Adam Vaccaro - January 21, 2017

President Donald Trump has spoken often about trade's effect on US manufacturing employment but has said comparatively little about another economic force that has caused factories to shed jobs: high-tech machines and automation.

At the Hyde Group's Southbridge factory, the amount of work that 100 employees do now would have required 180 workers more than a decade ago, said Bob Clemence, the company's vice president of sales.

While the number of blue-collar assembly-line jobs at US factories has been dropping in huge numbers for decades, Enrico Moretti, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the number of engineers working in factories has about doubled. Future manufacturing jobs will probably require engineering skills and training, Moretti said.

At Hyde, the typical factory worker might operate two or three computerized machines at a time, and the work generally requires an associate's degree or some college education, Clemence said. That's a far cry from 20 years ago, when the factory used to host night classes to help employees earn high school degrees.

"We could still do the GED," Clemence said. "But I need someone coming in the door that already has that degree information. I don't need somebody that is only running a fork truck."

In his presidential farewell address Jan. 10, President Obama highlighted the effects of technology on the workforce, noting "the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good middle-class jobs obsolete." He also called for ensuring higher-level education, as well as stronger labor unions, to blunt the effect.

Even if future manufacturing employees are trained to handle robots and high-tech machines, the math is simple enough: Machines and robots require fewer workers on factory floors. When the appliance maker Carrier, a division of United Technologies Corp., agreed to keep in Indiana about 800 jobs it had planned to send to Mexico, it marked an early public relations win for Trump. Within days, however, United Technologies' chief executive said new investments in the Indiana factory would probably result in automation and eventual job losses.

The strongest advocates for bringing offshore manufacturing back to the United States acknowledge automation's effect on the workforce but say it doesn't negate the need for more domestic factories. Harry Mosser, founder of the Reshoring Institute, which encourages companies to bring manufacturing operations back to the United States, said that even a highly automated factory is better for workers than no factory at all.

"If you bring back any manufacturing, you bring back some employment," he said.

run75441 -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 21, 2017 at 07:53 AM
Just a random question:

"At Hyde, the typical factory worker might operate two or three computerized machines at a time, and the work generally requires an associate's degree or some college education,"

What are "computerized machines," Fred? and why only two or three?

Fred C. Dobbs -> run75441... , January 21, 2017 at 08:34 AM
In my personal experience (as an IT guy) observing electronic techs in computer manufacturing (some decades ago) monitoring several 'computerized' testing machines at once. (Made for interesting challenges trying to measure productivity.)

Why only two or three? When an 'event' happens, prompt operator response is usually called for.

run75441 -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 21, 2017 at 06:13 PM
Fred:

No, a cnc cell will typically have 4 or 5 cnc machines. You just need labor to feed, stack and turn one off if there is an issue. One will do. Injection molding can be 2 to 4 presses. This is why Labor should have been paid more as they are replacing 3 and 4 people.

We already have this environment and plants are not crawling with engineers. They are needs for programming only and even then an operator might be able to do it.

im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 21, 2017 at 08:52 AM
Outsourcing to China means Quality will suffer, if not immediately then eventually.

US Made goods are generally better made, higher grade, and of more consistent quality.

The opposite happens in China even if initially Chinese goods are of equal quality.

Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , January 21, 2017 at 09:18 AM
Haven't had problems with various
hi-tech items (all from China?)
purchased in recent years.
cm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 21, 2017 at 03:26 PM
"We could still do the GED," Clemence said. "But I need someone coming in the door that already has that degree information. I don't need somebody that is only running a fork truck."

Translation: "We will not pay for upgrading the skills of fresh hires as long as we still have older workers in their 50's+ with existing skills *who are not leaving*."

And that aspect is hinted at right above - 20+ years ago, when today's 50+ were 20/30-ish, they paid for their education, and those people are still in the accessible labor pool.

But they *will* age out, and then they hand wringing and wailing about skill shortages will intensify (and you better believe companies will *then* arrange the skill upgrades).

Chris G -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 21, 2017 at 05:47 AM
> In the eyes of factory owners, singling them out won't necessarily solve the problem. Some say they were forced to move production overseas by their customers. At Hyde, it was the retail stores that carry its tools demanding lower prices. "It doesn't matter what they say about made in the USA, it's all about price," Clemence said. "They've taken some basic items and said there are commodity products and said, 'We only buy them by price.' "

Yup. Consumers matter. So long as we care more about getting the lowest price than whether the workers who made the widget were getting a fair deal the problem will persist.

cm -> Chris G ... , January 21, 2017 at 03:36 PM
It was said elsewhere in the article that "customers" actually meant retail chains.

With many products, including food, the origin of the product or its ingredients is not properly disclosed. "Made for", "distributed by", "packed in", "packaging printed in", are not actionable.

Then with advances in manufacturing and material sciences, it has become harder to judge the expected quality and workmanship of a product by its external appearance - most look well finished and spiffy, parts are fitting well, etc.

About 20+ years that wasn't the case, and it was much easier to tell that something is cheap junk (when looking good on the outside it may still be junk inside, but at least there was a way of identifying the lowest category).

These days it is more about planned/welcomed obsolescence - the product basically works, but some critical parts may be low grade, making it break after a while so you have to buy something new. This also affects "brands that used to be good".

Then one can only go by price, as that's a difference that can still be discerned. And obviously there is a feedback dynamic - stores observe what sells, and slowly remove variety and "mid range" products.

The internet also has played a role - online stores could underbid brick and mortar, then the latter had to cheapen and cut their offerings, driving more customers to the internet, etc.

[Jan 22, 2017] Weepy Globalist To Be Replaced By Rumbustious Working Class Hero At Noon Friday

An interesting quote: "So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority. "
Notable quotes:
"... the antecedent for "it" seems to be the danger to us from terrorism and foreign dictators–JD ..."
"... Watch: 'You Have Made Me Proud' – President Obama's Farewell Speech Is a Powerful Road-Map for Upholding Democracy , ..."
"... Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video, ..."
"... On the suggestion that Vladimir Putin helped Trump get elected: ..."
"... On the allegations in the BuzzFeed file about stuff he had paid those honey-trap hookers to do in Moscow: ..."
"... On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: ..."
"... On Lindsey Graham proposing a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia: ..."
"... That's the Trump we know and love. So was his reaction when a CNN reporter kept demanding to ask a question: "Don't be rude. No, I'm not going to give you a question You are fake news! " ..."
"... One of the reasons low-income Americans admire rich people is that they are do-ers who seem to live gilded lives, and not on the backs of the poor. It's the professional classes they don't like-the lawyers and doctors and teachers, who invade their lives with bills and lectures. The people who look and sound like Hillary Clinton. Trump was showing that he, too, was under the cosh of the miserable lawyers-he even had one come to the podium. ..."
"... Bad news, Trump haters: This bonkers show has made him even MORE popular, writes JUSTIN WEBB. He played to the gallery with something bordering on genius , ..."
"... Watch your back, Mr. President-Elect. Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon . ..."
"... BBC is still in nonstop 'take down Trump' mode, every other day the headline starts 'Donald Trump has provoked outrage' . ..."
"... From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. ..."
"... Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white. ..."
"... All this talk of Russian hacking and Russian interference emanating from the Progs misses the point. I don't believe in most of it. But surely Russians did what they could to favor Trump. But what's wrong with that, at least from our perspective? ..."
"... The fact is the US is not ruled by Americans but by the GLOB, or Globalist Tyranny. Though the GLOB is a diverse bunch of globalist-elites, the top dogs are Zionists, homos, and Anglo-Cuck-Collaborators. And these people have ZERO feeling for the historical white majority of the Americans. Anglo-Collaborators are too cucked out to have any white sentiments. They are like Joe Biden who will sell his ma down the river for his cookies and creams. These cucks are willing to turn all historically white nations into EU and US into non-white majority nations AS LONG AS they and their children are assure of privilege and power in the New Order. They are globo-quislings. ..."
"... So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority. ..."
"... Now, the Russian role in 2016 was nothing like French role in the War of Independence, but it may have tipped the balance. White Americans should rejoice and thank the Russians. ..."
"... American Media are not American. It is mostly GLOB. And it means that as long as US is under Glob power, it is under alien tyranny. Indeed, even with Trump as president, the most powerful force in the US is Jewish-Glob power. ..."
"... Trump's tweets are an act of genius. He has rocked the whole liberal establishment by stating his own opinions and speaking directly to those who have been ignored for years. ..."
"... This is revolutionary, Trump could never have survived a Presidential run in the past, he would have been unable to fight back, no one would be able to hear him. ..."
"... Who would have thought that a President could ignore and ridicule major media players in an age where careers are destroyed by the media because they disagree with gay marriage... ..."
"... The Zionists, CIA and FBI could finish with Trump in no time at all, but the problem is that it's not just Trump, he's only riding a wave. Eliminate Trump and they could get something much worse, so they probably calculate that it's better to try to corrupt Trump ( he's a dealmaker) despite his connection to the thing that they fear the most i.e. Radical Anglo Nationalism. ..."
"... Americans are generally aware of the founders of this country. However, immigrants like the Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered to be "garbage" by nativists at various points in time. Millions of immigrants who came to the States had little money, but a strong work ethic and the willingness to embrace our customs and our political traditions. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

Credit: VDare.com

This is the Week of the Two Presidents- Donald Trump succeeds Barack Obama at noon on Friday January 20. Both men recently addressed major gatherings: Barack Obama made his official farewell to the nation, Donald Trump held his first formal press conference since being elected. Each event was highly characteristic. My take: I for one am glad we have heard the last of Obama. And Trump's rumbustiousness is thrilling .

Obama stepped out in front of a huge audience in Chicago and delivered a long, gassy speech-51 minutes and 10 seconds. That's 10 minutes longer than the Farewell Addresses of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan combined .

Bush 41 did not technically give a farewell address, although his speech to West Point cadets, the last of his presidency, is sometimes cited as such. I don't know its duration, but the transcript runs to 3,300 words. The transcript of Obama's farewell address is just short of 5,000 words, so he left Poppy Bush in the dust, too. This is a guy who really likes the sound of his own voice.

The gold standard in political speeches, so far as I'm concerned, was the one Calvin Coolidge delivered to the Massachusetts Senate 102 years ago, after being elected President of that body. It consisted of forty-four words, thus :

Honorable Senators: My sincerest thanks I offer you. Conserve the firm foundations of our institutions. Do your work with the spirit of a soldier in the public service. Be loyal to the Commonwealth and to yourselves, and be brief; above all things, be brief.

That makes the Gettysburg Address , at 272 words, look positively flabby. It makes Obama's farewell address look morbidly obese.

What did Obama's speech actually contain? Well, there was lots of "hope" and "change": five "hopes" and sixteen "changes" by my count. I couldn't actually pin down anything declarative about "hope", but there was definitely a consistent theme on "change." Change is good! Don't be afraid of change! -

Constant change has been America's hallmark; that it's not something to fear but something to embrace It [ the antecedent for "it" seems to be the danger to us from terrorism and foreign dictators–JD ] represents the fear of change; the fear of people who look or speak or pray differently

If you fear change you are a bad person!

I'm sorry, Mr. President, but that is inane. Some change is good, some isn't. Saying, "Change is good!" makes as much sense as saying, " Weather is good!" or "Vegetation is good!" If an asteroid were to strike the earth and wipe out the human race, that would be a major change, wouldn't it? Not many of us would consider it good, though.

And just as change is not necessarily good, fear is not necessarily bad. We have the fear instinct for a very good reason: to preserve ourselves against dangers. We may argue about whether some one particular phenomenon is or is not dangerous, but fear itself is useful and valuable, not a failing or a weakness .

Take for example that "fear of people who look or speak or pray differently." If people who look different from me in some one particular way have a homicide rate seven times that of people who look the same as me, and a robbery rate thirteen times, isn't fear of those people rational? If violent acts of terrorism against innocent civilians are almost exclusively committed by people who pray a certain way, is not fear of people who pray that way justified?

And look at Obama's illogical assumptions:

If we're unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don't look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children-because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of America's workforce.

Note the patronizing conflation of "immigrants" with "brown kids." I'm an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant; neither of us is brown.

Note also the meteorological approach to immigration. It's like the weather! Can't do anything about it! In fact immigration is just a policy, that we can change at will. We could, without any offense to the Constitution, stop all immigration and require all noncitizens to leave our territory.

How would that be for "change"! To fear it would, of course, be weak and un-American.

And then there are Obama's characteristic weaselly little half-truths:

I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans who are just as patriotic as we are.

I have no problem with the first half of that. I too reject discrimination against American citizens who are Muslims.

At the same time, and without any inconsistency I can see, I think we have all the Muslims we need. Islam doesn't fit comfortably into non-Muslim nations. It creates problems that we'd be wise to avoid. Let's stop all further settlement of Muslims in the U.S.A.

Again, I don't know of any constitutional reason why we can't do that.

But the second half, Obama's assertion that Muslims are just as patriotic as we are, is open to question. It's true in the sense that some Muslims, like some non-Muslims, are patriotic, while others aren't. The proportions in each case bears examining. The non-patriotism of Muslim non-patriots is of a seriously different kind from the non-patriotism of Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, and Wiccan non-patriots.

This slippery sleight of mouth is very Obamaesque. And personally, I could do without all the girlish emoting that Obama went in for towards the end of the speech. By the time he'd gotten through gushing over all the hope and change he'd generated, and over his wife and daughters, etc., there was, as several news outlets noted, not a dry eye in the house.[ Watch: 'You Have Made Me Proud' – President Obama's Farewell Speech Is a Powerful Road-Map for Upholding Democracy , Black Entertainment Television, January 11, 3017]

From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. Then I recall that this is somewhat un-American of me, and feel a bit ashamed. My fellow Americans mostly like that kind of thing, and I ought to yield to their taste.

I just can't, though. I'm from a nation and a time that admired reserve, fortitude, and the stiff upper lip. "I have lost my leg, by God!" Lord Uxbridge told the Duke of Wellington on the field of Waterloo, as cannonballs whizzed by. "By God, and have you!" replied the Duke.

Those are my people. They're dead now, or old, even in the Mother Country. But they had something that's been lost, and the loss of which I regret very much.

Trump's presser was comparable in wordage to Obama's speech.

The questions and answers, not counting the nested presentation by Trump's lawyer, were seventy-four hundred words, of which by far the majority were Trump's. So chances are Trump spoke more words than Obama. And they were pure Trumplish: unfiltered, demotic, boastful, pugnacious in self-defense, hyperbolic in praise, brutal in scorn, sometimes contradictory, occasionally nonsensical.

When he didn't want to answer a question he just blustered. Would Obamacare guarantee coverage for current beneficiaries? Trump:

Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video, NYT, January 11, 2017

The information content of that answer is, let's be frank, zero. You could in fact, in the spirit of Coolidge, you could make an economical translation of that 430-word answer from Trumplish into Coolidgean using just three words: "Wait and see."

That's OK, though. Donald Trump is by no means the first President to answer a reporter's question with blustery evasion-by no means.

It was Trump's style and demeanor at the presser that had us Trumpians clapping along with him. Those, and his one-liners. Four sample one-liners:

That's the Trump we know and love. So was his reaction when a CNN reporter kept demanding to ask a question: "Don't be rude. No, I'm not going to give you a question You are fake news! " Similarly with BuzzFeed, which Trump said is, quote, "a failing pile of garbage." Along the lines of the old joke about Harry Truman and the word "manure," I guess America should be glad he used the word "garbage."

Of all the commentary on Trump's presser, I think the one that got to the heart of the matter was Justin Webb's in the Daily Mail , January 12th, pertaining to the point in the presser where Trump brought up his lawyer to explain about his business interests:

One of the reasons low-income Americans admire rich people is that they are do-ers who seem to live gilded lives, and not on the backs of the poor. It's the professional classes they don't like-the lawyers and doctors and teachers, who invade their lives with bills and lectures. The people who look and sound like Hillary Clinton. Trump was showing that he, too, was under the cosh of the miserable lawyers-he even had one come to the podium.

And he was demonstrating that, despite this, he had admirably emerged with his businesses intact. I am no psychology professor, but this seemed to me to be playing to the gallery-i.e. those "ordinary" Americans who are so fed up with the political class-with something bordering on genius.

Bad news, Trump haters: This bonkers show has made him even MORE popular, writes JUSTIN WEBB. He played to the gallery with something bordering on genius , By Justin Webb, The Daily Mail, January 13, 2017

Mail man Webb then goes on to warn that Trump might be too combative, too much the Alpha Male, for the suits in D.C. to put up with for long, so that they will find a way to force him out. Webb concludes:

If they succeed, it would be a bitter blow to the millions of working-class Americans who voted for Trump, folk who felt he alone among politicians understood their aspirations, and who would have been thrilled by his extraordinary, rumbustious performance this week. It would again confirm their view that the political establishment looks after its own-while the "little people" are brushed aside.

I don't think I count as working-class. My hands are rather soft , and I only wear boots for hiking or shoveling snow . I'll admit that I was thrilled by Trump's performance, though, just as much as Justin Webb's hypothetical working-class Americans.

And yes, like Webb, I worry that Trump's don't-give-a-damn rumbustiousness may be too much for the seat-warmers and log-rollers of Washington, D.C.-among which category I would include our intelligence agencies -to the degree that they will find some way to unseat him. Watch your back, Mr. President-Elect. Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon .

And in case you're wondering, listeners, "rumbustious" is indeed a word- I looked it up .

John Derbyshire [ email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He's had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013 . His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com .

(Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)

jivilov , January 17, 2017 at 8:40 am GMT

Another great article by El Derbo. BTW an alternate version of Wellington's reply to Uxbridge goes, "By Jove, so you have!" Whatever his merits the Duke was not strong on empathy. But if he was, w0uld he have been such a winning general?

Anonymous Nephew , January 17, 2017 at 10:18 am GMT

Justin Webb was the BBCs US correspondent for years ( as was his father ) . He's also one of the presenters of the R4 Today programme.

( BBC is still in nonstop 'take down Trump' mode, every other day the headline starts 'Donald Trump has provoked outrage' . Today on R4 we had the Observer's literary editor in conversation about Trump with Malcolm Gladwell – I wonder if that was positive or negative?)

polistra , January 17, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

I'm somewhat less worried about Fort Marcy. Important difference between Trump and Nixon or Reagan: Trump has his own security forces, both physical and cyber. He doesn't have to rely on the Deepstate-owned Secret Service.

He clearly understands how these things work, as demonstrated by his discussion of paper messages vs email. He's been 'controversial' for decades and he's been watching his back effectively for decades.

TomSchmidt , January 17, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans who are just as patriotic as we are.

Perhaps he accepts discrimination against Muslim Americans whose patriotism differs, or is less than, "us," whoever that is? It's a slimy, unctuous, political phrase.

Randal , January 17, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

Another good piece that ought to be gracing the pages of the Spectator and the Telegraph, if those publications were still traditionalist conservative and weren't firmly in the grip of pc censorship and neoconnery.

From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. Then I recall that this is somewhat un-American of me, and feel a bit ashamed. My fellow Americans mostly like that kind of thing, and I ought to yield to their taste

I agree entirely, and I don't have the burden of having to try to assimilate to a foreign country's culture, so I can say so without qualification. I don't like men who openly display sentimentality and don't respect them as leaders.

Women are a different matter, but with a few unusual exceptions they don't make good leaders anyway.

By the way, here's a matter that affects both your country of origin and your adopted one: how remarkable is it that supposedly serious people ("Theresa May's advisers") are reported as putting David Cameron forward as a candidate for Secretary General of NATO? The man who repeatedly displayed his complete unsuitability for any role in strategic decision making by not only pushing the disastrous destruction of Libya's government in 2011 but, only two years later and with the costs of that earlier blunder in full view, actually wanted to do the same to Syria! Worse, not only did he evidently want to do it, but he lacked the competence to manage a compliant Parliament into giving him the required rubber stamp!

Of course, it's not all that remarkable if one ditches the naïve idea that those "advising May" are not either incompetent themselves or acting out of ulterior motives that are incompatible with any genuine British national interest.

An optimist might suggest that perhaps clever subversion rather than stupidity is the explanation here. What better way to further undermine an institution that has long outlived its original purpose and has become a vehicle for troublemaking and disorder, yet has such deep institutional roots and serves such a useful role for nefarious US deep state purposes that it cannot be rooted out, than to put at its helm an individual so patently unsuited to such a role?

But that is surely hopelessly optimistic. Most likely the obvious explanation is correct, that it is just another instance of the trademarked mix of incompetence and evil that seems to have been running US sphere foreign policy since the 1990s.

Anonymous , January 17, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

Weepy Globalist to be Replaced By Rumbustious Working Class Hero At Noon Friday Can D.C. Suits Stand It?

One of the best headers ever. (Answer: yes, but barely. "It could be the end of think tanks as we know them", they have been heard soughing.)

Bragadocious , January 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

If we're unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don't look like us "

This is precisely the error made by progressives immersed in the scuzzy identity politics bathtub. I don't want to "invest" in the children of Irish illegal immigrants either. And they look a lot like me. Their parents are likely to be moronic leftists who arrived here with disdain and contempt for rule of law, no different than the parents of MS-13 gangbangers in Brentwood. Very basically, if you can't stand in line like everyone else, you're not worth investing in.

WorkingClass , January 17, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT
@polistra

There will likely be gunplay at the Inaugural. At Maidan snipers shot people on both sides of the conflict. Maidan is the model for the coup against Trump. Either there will be an Erdogan style purge, or Trump will be impeached, imprisoned or martyred.

Corvinus , January 17, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain

"Secession is just around the corner it's a comming."

That is a pipe dream. Now, Derby "This is a guy who really likes the sound of his own voice." Pot, meet kettle.

"Note the patronizing conflation of "immigrants" with "brown kids." I'm an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant; neither of us is brown."

Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white.

"At the same time, and without any inconsistency I can see, I think we have all the Muslims we need."

Why should an Englishman and a Chinese woman (race mixing, I thought that was a big no-no) be allowed to enter the United States? We already have too many of your kind already!

"But the second half, Obama's assertion that Muslims are just as patriotic as we are, is open to question. It's true in the sense that some Muslims, like some non-Muslims, are patriotic, while others aren't. The proportions in each case bears examining.

Indeed, the proportions in each case bears examining. How many American Muslims committed acts of terrorism on American soil prior to 911?

"The non-patriotism of Muslim non-patriots is of a seriously different kind from the non-patriotism of Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, and Wiccan non-patriots."

This is gooblygook. Either a person is loyal or disloyal. Now, using Derbs logic, the non-patriotism of Jew non-patriots is also noteworthy for being a "different kind". Because Jews cause all kinds of havoc, right?

"Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon."

Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate. Certainly, Woodward and Bernstein and others employed questionable means during their investigation, but the LARGER issue was to expose the lies of an administration. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden merely copied the strategies of these two reporters, yet somehow they are lionized for their uncovering despite their covert means to obtain information?

rienzi , January 17, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT

Strangely enough, Trump has already done more to improve the lives of ordinary Americans by saving some jobs in Indianapolis, before he even takes office, than the last three presidents have accomplished in 24 years in office.

Forbes , January 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT

The disgrace (conundrum?), as it were, is that plenty of 30- and 40- and 50-something Americans find Obama's shtick appealing, whether the self-referential I, me, my, or the weepiness–it's not just dopey Millennials without the experience of time. They've all been inculcated with the idea that it's the feelz that matters.

Anon , January 17, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

All this talk of Russian hacking and Russian interference emanating from the Progs misses the point. I don't believe in most of it. But surely Russians did what they could to favor Trump. But what's wrong with that, at least from our perspective?

After all, didn't the French welcome the American role in driving out German Occupation during WWII? Didn't Philippines welcome the Americans in driving out the Japanese?

The fact is the US is not ruled by Americans but by the GLOB, or Globalist Tyranny. Though the GLOB is a diverse bunch of globalist-elites, the top dogs are Zionists, homos, and Anglo-Cuck-Collaborators. And these people have ZERO feeling for the historical white majority of the Americans. Anglo-Collaborators are too cucked out to have any white sentiments. They are like Joe Biden who will sell his ma down the river for his cookies and creams. These cucks are willing to turn all historically white nations into EU and US into non-white majority nations AS LONG AS they and their children are assure of privilege and power in the New Order. They are globo-quislings.

So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority.

Any people who are under alien tyranny should welcome other alien forces to counter-balance the alien force currently in power.
It's like the American Revolution wouldn't have been possible without the crucial help of the French. The British were too powerful, and most of the major battles won by the Americans were actually fought by the French.

Now, the Russian role in 2016 was nothing like French role in the War of Independence, but it may have tipped the balance. White Americans should rejoice and thank the Russians.

After all, there are parallels. In the 90s, the globalists took over Russia and totally looted and plundered that country.

It was nationalism that restored Russian sovereignty somewhat(though it still has long way to go).

So, white Americans need to look to Russia and Russian-Americans. Indeed, just as Jewish-Americans feel closer to Russian-Jews and French Jews than to white gentile Americans(whom most Jews despise), white gentile Americans should feel closer to white gentiles all over the world than with Jews or other elements of the GLOB. White Americans and white Russians should regard one another as brothers. After all, white Russians don't want to destroy White America. It is the Jewish globalists who have that agenda.

Pan-Zionism and Pan-Jewish-ism govern Jewish mindset and power. Jewish Americans feel closer to Israeli-Jews, Hungarian Jews, French Jews, and British Jews than with gentile Americans.

So, white gentiles need a pan-white-ism. If Jewish-Americans and Russian Jews work together to plunder both Russian gentiles and American gentiles, then gentiles in both nations should work together to defend themselves from avaricious globalist Jewish power. Why should only Jews have the right to create tribal networks all over the world?

I say white gentiles also need to create pan-white or pan-European networks all over. They need to bury the hatchet because they face similar threats in both US and EU.

If someone is holding you hostage, and another person saves you from your captor, should you blame the other person for having saved you? No, of course not. You should thank him.

So, if Russia played a role in helping white Americans liberate themselves from the tyranny of the Glob, white Americans should be grateful.

Jewish GLOB would like us to believe that their power & control is 'American as bagel and cream cheese and lox', but their power is alien and anti-American. After all, globalism is a neo-imperialist war directed at ALL nations. So, if alien Russian influence was crucial in 2016, it was in helping knock out the alien Jewish influence. While there are good decent patriotic Jewish Americans, most of Jewish Power in the US is not patriotic or nationalist but GLOBO-IMPERIALIST and committed to destroying the national sovereignty of all white nations. Consider what Jews tried to do to Hungary and Poland.

They tried to force those nations to surrender to non-stop Muslim and African invasions caused by wars fomented by Neocons and their cuck-whores.

Besides, even now, Russian influence in the US is minuscule compared to the power of the GLOB. Glob elites are just a tiny percentage of US population, but they control 90% of media, Wall Street, Hollywood, academia, and much else. The fact that such a small minority controls so much of American Power should be the real scandal.

American Media are not American. It is mostly GLOB. And it means that as long as US is under Glob power, it is under alien tyranny. Indeed, even with Trump as president, the most powerful force in the US is Jewish-Glob power.

So, gentile Americans should welcome ANY foreign/alien help to weaken the power of the alien GLOB that controls most of the institutions in America. Look how the whores of Congress pledge their main loyalty to Israel, Israel, and Israel.

Agree: Autochthon
Svigor , January 18, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT

And in case you're wondering, listeners, "rumbustious" is indeed a word-I looked it up.

Ha! Now you know how it feels!

Skeptikal , January 18, 2017 at 3:46 am GMT

@Corvinus

"Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate. "

Don't be silly. Read Family of Secrets, by Russ Baker, for the real story. The relevant chapters are available online at WhoWhatWhy.

Authenticjazzman , January 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT

@Binyamin

" His cabinet appointees are almost exclusively wealthy ( actually extremely wealthy) white men"

So it would have made you feel better if he had appointed a cabinet made up exclusively of poor people of color, right.
I am thinking that you are German because your viewpoints are identical with the german leftist " Gutmensch" SJW worldview, and you simply do not comprehend that average Americans are not jealous or spiteful of "Wealthy" folks, on the contrary, they respect them and congratulate them for their status.
You guys have no problem with wealthy "Old white men" as long as they are leftists, such as BC or B Sanders or WB, or BG.
Myself I am an "Old white man" and I am not ashamed to be an "Old white man", so put that in your "Gutmensch" pipe and smoke it.

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

El Dato , January 18, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT
• 100 Words

I do think the "the fear of change" is a healthy element to have in a world that looks like "The Shockwave Rider" come true.

Master Soda , "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to statism. Statism leads to blank checks for politicians. Blank checks for politicians leads to welfare/warfare and micromanagement and control freakshows sold as progressivism."

Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 1:10 am GMT
• 300 Words

Mr. Derbyshire writes that "Saying, "Change is good!" makes as much sense as saying, "Weather is good!" or "Vegetation is good!"

I have made the same point, but about different, more contentious words, for decades.
Two of the words I said were silly to regard as good or bad were " intolerance" and "discrimination", words that for at least 30 years have, in the minds of many politicians, educators, executives and the brainwashed, morphed into synonyms for "bad!", which is a truly dumb and gutless surrender of language, it's and meaning and power of independent thought.

A society, any society, anywhere on earth, falls by what it chooses wisely to discriminate against and what it refuses to tolerate. Sometimes these choices are contentious and harder to justify against the slogans and sound-bites that we have been relentlessly force-fed for a half century.

Just mooting, that discrimination or intolerance are, of themselves, not necessarily bad, prompts the Pavlovian reflex of sharp intakes of breath and dutiful frowns from many listeners. Dare moot that "racism", sexism or homophobia (a ridiculous word etymologically) of any of the other proscribed -isms and –obiahs are, in their milder degrees, sensible social phenomena, and vitriol flows from the mouths of PC believers as reason departs as readily as it does from believers of the ROP when their cult is challenged logically. One is labelled as irredeemably evil despite, and I repeat, ANY society, anywhere on earth, falls by what it chooses to discriminate against and what it refuses to tolerate just as much as it rises by what it encourages.

What we choose to encourage or discriminate against is far too important to be treated as dogma.

The rules that govern society should be open to rigorous debate and examination, not, as is the case here in the UK and most of Europe, "defended" by a cowed and complicit Fourth Estate, and enforces by imprisonment for so-called "hate speech."

Good luck America, I hope that Trump grows into the job and proves a much better President than the tactically-weepy O'Bummer.

Agree: dfordoom
Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 1:18 am GMT
@El Dato

Never heard of "The Shockwave Rider" but it's true about how fear can be manipulated, although it's not just Lefty pols who exploit it.
According to their creed, pols ramp up fears or damp down reasonable and prudent ones, according to their agenda.

Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 3:45 am GMT

@Anon

That is indeed a well-informed comment, unsurprisingly made under anonimity. If I published the same comment under my own name here in the UK, it would be off to the gulag for me, as we do not have the admirable First Amendment of The US contitution.

If you published this under your own name in America, it would "only" be punishable by a media hounding, career death and the sort of public vilification seen during The Cultural Revolution.

Carlton Meyer , Website January 19, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

Obama, the master liar. Today, he stated:

"And it is important for the United States to stand up for the basic principal that big countries don't go around and invade and bully smaller countries."

That was so bizarre I had to laugh, but noted the corporate press softball pitchers at this "news" conference didn't even smile at that absurd statement. No need for a "fact check" news story. Hell, the USA don't just bully and invade, it destroys and lays waste to entire nations on a yearly basis. Obama had dozens of foreigners murdered via drones and snipers each week, but perhaps that's not considered a bully tactic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/obama-final-press-conference.html?_r=0

Agree: Mark Green , dfordoom
Kyle McKenna , January 19, 2017 at 5:40 am GMT

"fear of people who look or speak or pray differently."

Typical SJW gobbledygook. First of all, no one looks, speaks, or prays like I do, so that's right out the window. It may look that way to you, but that's because you're ignorant, racist, jealous, and un-American.

Second, and much more important: It's not fear that causes me to resist the trashing of my country. It's love. I'm not remotely fearful of third-world refuse, but I'm definitely disgusted with the way the country I love seems to be circling the drain, and I'll do just about anything I can to prevent it.

That most definitely includes supporting a 'rumbustious' president who–despite offering genuine causes for concern–has made all the right enemies. Even if I agreed with him about nothing, I'd support him for that reason alone. What's that? They're threatening war? Nonsense. The war has been going on for half a century. But we have only begun to fight.

larry lurker , January 19, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: "No, I don't think they care at all."

My favorite part of the whole press conference came right before this:

Reporter: But every president since the '70s has [released his tax returns] - Trump (sarcastically): Gee, I've never heard that. I've never heard that before.

Mr. Anon , January 19, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT

@Corvinus

"Pot, meet kettle."

Nonsense. Derb is an engaging and entertaining writer. You, on the other hand, are a tiresome bore.

"Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white."

Derb and his family are okay by me. You, however – I'd have no problem having you summarily deported.

"Why should an Englishman and a Chinese woman (race mixing, I thought that was a big no-no) be allowed to enter the United States? We already have too many of your kind already!"

No, we have too many of your kind, whatever your kind may be.

"Indeed, the proportions in each case bears examining. How many American Muslims committed acts of terrorism on American soil prior to 911?"

Prior to 911? What's so special about that day? Gosh, what might have happened on that particular date. How many countries did Hitler invade before Czechoslovakia?

"This is gooblygook. Either a person is loyal or disloyal."

No, they can simply be uninterested. I.e., America really isn't their country, it's just a place they happen to be.

"Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate."

You are a fool – a contemptible and stupid fool. Nixon was no dirtier than either Johnson or Kennedy. He was taken down because the Washington Press Corps, the Democratic party (which he had humiliated), and elements of the Civil Service wanted him gone.

Wizard of Oz , January 19, 2017 at 9:46 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer

To be fair (why you might ask? But let me slide on) Obama did speak of not bullying small countries. I am not aware of any drone strikes on people who were government officials or otherwise representative of their small countries. Are you? Or of any other assassinations. Trade sanctions?

Anon , January 19, 2017 at 9:49 am GMT

One good thing about Trump presidency is the anti-war Left will be activated once again. Hopefully, they will prevent future wars.

Autochthon , January 19, 2017 at 11:03 am GMT
@Binyamin

For the first time in history we will have a [sic] oligarch in the White House .

Despite my having voted for him and supported his campaign, I have my suspicions and reservations about the man as well (I'm a cynic and a pessimist), but the statement above is complete horse-shit.

Pat the rat , January 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

Trump's tweets are an act of genius. He has rocked the whole liberal establishment by stating his own opinions and speaking directly to those who have been ignored for years.

This is revolutionary, Trump could never have survived a Presidential run in the past, he would have been unable to fight back, no one would be able to hear him.

Who would have thought that a President could ignore and ridicule major media players in an age where careers are destroyed by the media because they disagree with gay marriage...

Agent76 , January 19, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

Nov 21, 2016 Trump Is An Inside Job

"Statists are always gonna state and absolute power always corrupts absolutely. Trump is merely the right's version of Obama. If you really thought the left-right paradigm was abandoned, that the powers-that-be would let an actual outsider not only run for president but win well, I suggest you spend more time researching the new world order and less time voting for some power-hungry individual who claims to make everything great again." – Dan Dicks

https://youtu.be/VLHVikUN73s

macilrae , January 19, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

Thanks for a lively piece Mr Derbyshire. As we gain experience in life we realize that there are probably twenty 'good talkers' for every 'do-er' jockeying for acceptance in positions of power – and we still get taken in by the talkers, even though they almost invariably have an insignificant track-record for the desired position. They end up departing with little accomplished, still talking: Obama being a perfect text book example.

You say:

And just as change is not necessarily good, fear is not necessarily bad. We have the fear instinct for a very good reason: to preserve ourselves against dangers. We may argue about whether some one particular phenomenon is or is not dangerous, but fear itself is useful and valuable, not a failing or a weakness.

I remember, when running a company, there came one of those fashionable (and short-lived) management crazes promoting the ideas of W. Edwards Deming, an American whose philosophy helped to bring about a massive change in Japanese industry. Deming asserted that 'quality' had to be instilled into everything in the workplace and he had fourteen points for management – mostly sound common sense except, I could never get along with point number eight "abolish fear in the workplace". Now, this sounds terrific and who could oppose it?

Except that without a little bit of fear/uncertainty/insecurity, no organization can run well – people just get too comfortable and secure and discipline declines. But how the Hell can you ever admit to that in public? Or in a book? Of course you can't!

Che Guava , January 19, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

Congrats USA. Nice article as always Mr. Derb,, but I think you are too optimistic. We will have to wait and see. From what little I know of USA polititcs, Trump is great because so many of his attackers are arseholes. Myths floating about the pallets of cash to Iran:simply a retum of stolen money, Much more to say. Too tired.

Rurik , January 19, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

@Binyamin

The dirt poor white middle Americans whose factories have closed and communities decimated, voted for him in droves and where are they now? . I expect the poor whites who voted for him will soon realize that they have been mugged.

yea, we'd have been so much better off with Hillary, huh?

but you're forgetting one thing about Trump's victory regardless of all of that-
and that's how great it makes us deplorables all feel at watching Obama and Michelle and people like you going through your butt-hurt, existential crisis. Your angst and dread exhilarates us all and reminds us how wonderful the political process can be. How, in a word; satisfying .. it can be.

so as your knickers are twisting over your equivocating gender bits, we're buoyed by your tears. In fact, I'd like to see a veritable ocean of your collective tears, and maybe sail a huge, obnoxious yacht from Texas to Kalingrad on it, flying a proud confederate, rebel battle flag. And I'll even name the ship The Deplorables, and when I've had my fill of Budweiser beer, Sherriff Joe and Vlad and I'll (I'd invite him too) relieve our white male piss into your ocean of tears, and watch as the salt mingles with the diversity. I'd be fun, no?

Just watching Van Jones and Michelle and all those Hollywood snowflakes and SJW and castrating Maddow dykes and sodomites and race hustlers and La Raza pendejos and Kristol war pigs and entrenched ticks in DC- sucking the blood of the republic, and all the assorted butt-hurt losers and haters that have languished in smug certitude at the destruction of my kind, just seeing them all desolate and inconsolable, just that, makes the Donald Trump win a precious moment to savor and cherish.

So please do keep posting, and telling us all how bad it's going to be. How indeed, calamitous and catastrophic! this all is. Where else can I relish such delicious and tasty morsels of sweet schadenfreude, than right here on the UR?

Agree: woodNfish
woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

@Binyamin

His cabinet appointees are almost exclusively wealthy (actually, extremely wealthy) white men.

Obviously you are a dumbass racist or you would know that white people, especially white men are extremely smart and capable. Don't want to believe me? Pull your head out of your ass for a second and look around you – we created almost everything you see or use. Your modern world doesn't exist at all without us because WE created it from the constitutional laws you live by to the car you drive, cell phone you play Angry Birds on, to the computer and the software that runs it and lets you post to this site. Oh yeah – we also created the Internet. Yeah, that's right – White Men – the best thing that ever happened to this world and your shitty life. Get over yourself, racist!

woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:17 pm GMT
@attilathehen

A white man who married a brownish-yellow Asian woman cannot tell his Asian offspring that they cannot date or associate with blacks.

Many Asians, maybe even most, consider blacks to be sub-human.

woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT

@macilrae

W. Edwards Deming, an American whose philosophy helped to bring about a massive change in Japanese industry.

Deming went to Japan to sell his ideas because American manufacturing wouldn't listen to him. His quality ideas are now instituted in the ISO requirements which every manufacturer adheres to if they want to sell internationally.

macilrae , January 20, 2017 at 12:40 am GMT
@woodNfish

Certainly – but at least you don't see fellow management saluting you in the corridor with fourteen fingers anymore – it came and went in US as a fad lasting approximately two years but required more than ten for full implementation.

dfordoom , Website January 20, 2017 at 2:17 am GMT
@Anon

One good thing about Trump presidency is the anti-war Left will be activated once again.

Hopefully, they will prevent future wars.

One would like to think that. However the entity that calls itself the Left has become remarkably fond of war. They've discovered that war could be a useful tool for imposing transgender bathroom rights on the entire planet.

If Trump (God forbid) looked like starting a war with Russia would there be any opposition from an anti-war Left?

woodNfish , January 20, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT
@macilrae

I have no idea what you mean by "saluting with 14 fingers", but ISO is not a fad. Drive around any area with manufacturing and you will see companies touting their ISO 9000 certification because of Deming. His ideas were good and he has had a lasting effect on manufacturing across the globe.

Agree: Dan Hayes
Crawfurdmuir , January 20, 2017 at 5:06 am GMT

@Corvinus

It's the country of those immigrants who are naturalized, either recently or in the past. That fact is undeniable.

It's quite deniable. The founding stock of this country were not "immigrants" – they were colonists. They never left the realms of the British monarch. They simply moved to his dominions beyond the seas. Thus they never had to be naturalized, since they were already his subjects. When they declared their independence, they made themselves citizens of their own country. Again, no act of naturalization was necessary.

As Steve Sailer has often remarked, the story of these founders and patriots as colonists, frontiersmen, and pioneers has been allowed to fade from the public consciousness in favor of the narrative of the "wretched refuse of [the old world's] teeming shore " Yet immigrants past and present enjoy American liberty and prosperity only because of the efforts of the original settlers to win them, and their willingness to share those blessings with deserving newcomers.

bunga , January 20, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT

Immigrant issue is the fig leaf under which certain brand of conservatives hide their frustration at the fact that the elite,the military-industrial complex , the colonizers of new age globalist and expansionist have not been to continue to provide them with the certainties and the beauties of creature comfort at a reduced affordable way as was the case until may be 1990 .

Now they have to work like anyone else New age slavery has not exempted them from rigor of life and work as have been before. This current scenario also appeared during great depression They ,then did not have the fig leaf of blaming the immigrants to cover their naked butts that personify their mental make up and intellectual understanding of their current situation. . They went for Roosevelt's They supported New Deal. They still love free stuffs and goodies Just look at the demands for Federal emergency relief program to get their butt out of the natural disasters .

Jeff77450 , January 20, 2017 at 7:22 pm GMT

Mr. Derbyshire's finger-crossing aside, I predict that we haven't heard the last of Barack Hussein Obama.

Miro23 , January 20, 2017 at 9:24 pm GMT

Honorable Senators: My sincerest thanks I offer you. Conserve the firm foundations of our institutions. Do your work with the spirit of a soldier in the public service. Be loyal to the Commonwealth and to yourselves, and be brief; above all things, be brief.

It's nice to see a reference to Calvin Coolidge, IMHO Americas finest post 1900 President.

He was Progressive when it meant things like women's suffrage, opportunity for minorities and universal health care, but at the same time was a Conservative in the truest sense of the word with a great respect for the Constitution and the Founders of the US.

He also had this really useful idea that most proposals for legislation derived from Special Interests (and needed to be excluded ), and that any legislation that did go forward had to have its downsides thoroughly checked beforehand.

Thales the Milesian , January 20, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT

Barak Hussein Obama has not returned the Nobel Peace (Piss) Prize. This demonstrates he lacks decency and self-respect. The warmongers Obama and Hitlery are THE fascists!!! Bush II, Obama and Hitlery to Nuerenberg! Long live PRESIDENT TRUMP!

Miro23 , January 20, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

@polistra

He clearly understands how these things work, as demonstrated by his discussion of paper messages vs email. He's been 'controversial' for decades and he's been watching his back effectively for decades.

The Zionists, CIA and FBI could finish with Trump in no time at all, but the problem is that it's not just Trump, he's only riding a wave. Eliminate Trump and they could get something much worse, so they probably calculate that it's better to try to corrupt Trump ( he's a dealmaker) despite his connection to the thing that they fear the most i.e. Radical Anglo Nationalism.

Wizard of Oz , January 20, 2017 at 11:58 pm GMT

@Hibernian

The trouble is Pascal's wager implies contradictions because it is simultaneously valid for any and every god or system that promises (infinite) rewards and most of those religions don't allow for the others to be true. Anyway the concept of one's sentient self without a body has surely been impossible to believe in for several generations at least.

Wizard of Oz , January 21, 2017 at 12:13 am GMT

@bunga

Why hasn't Keynes's 1930 "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" worked out? With birth control and technologucal advances since 1930 all Americans could be living in great material comfort and with plenty of leisure time for most of their lives. Is it just the crude insatiability of most human beings untamed by the more ascetic traditions? Is it status seeking by too many? (That might include enjoying the greatest locations which can't be added to with more storeys). Is it widespread criminality and its costs? Or .?

Corvinus , January 21, 2017 at 4:40 am GMT

@Crawfurdmuir

"It's quite deniable. The founding stock of this country were not "immigrants" – they were colonists."

I wasn't debating nor disputing this point. Mr. Anon pointed out that there are immigrants by which "America really isn't their country, it's just a place they happen to be." He is other than accurate in his assessment. Those groups who emigrated here and are now citizens are part of this country. It is their country as well if they went through the process legally.

"As Steve Sailer has often remarked, the story of these founders and patriots as colonists, frontiersmen, and pioneers has been allowed to fade from the public consciousness in favor of the narrative of the "wretched refuse of [the old world's] teeming shore "

Americans are generally aware of the founders of this country. However, immigrants like the Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered to be "garbage" by nativists at various points in time. Millions of immigrants who came to the States had little money, but a strong work ethic and the willingness to embrace our customs and our political traditions.

"Yet immigrants past and present enjoy American liberty and prosperity only because of the efforts of the original settlers to win them, and their willingness to share those blessings with deserving newcomers."

Those original settlers included the British, the Dutch, and the Spanish, among others, who also forcibly removed tribal groups from their settled areas, as well as invaded the world and invited the world by instituting slavery in the Thirteen Colonies.

[Jan 21, 2017] [Forum] Trump A Resisters Guide Harpers Magazine

Notable quotes:
"... Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. ..."
"... A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts. ..."
"... Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | harpers.org
[Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies. It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die. Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working class, the refusal is unimpeachable. But like the know-nothing disavowal of knowledge after 9/11, when explanations of terrorism were construed as exonerations of terrorism, the refusal of empathy since 11/9 is a will to ignorance. Far simpler to imagine Trump voters as possessed by a kind of demonic intelligence, or anti-intelligence, transcending all the rules of the established order. Rather than treat Trump as the outgrowth of normal politics and traditional institutions - it is the Electoral College, after all, not some beating heart of darkness, that sent Trump to the White House - there is a disabling insistence that he and his forces are like no political formation we've seen. By encouraging us to see only novelty in his monstrosity, analyses of this kind may prove as crippling as the neocons' assessment of Saddam's regime. That, too, was held to be like no tyranny we'd seen, a despotism where the ordinary rules of politics didn't apply and knowledge of the subject was therefore useless.

Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency. Where Sanders promised to change the conversation, to make the battlefield a contest between a multicultural neoliberalism and a multiracial social democracy, Clinton sought to keep the battlefield as it has been for the past quarter-century. In this single respect, she can claim a substantial victory. It's no accident that one of the most spectacular confrontations since the election pitted the actors of Hamilton against the tweets of Trump. These fixed, frozen positions - high on rhetoric, low on action - offer an almost perfect tableau of our ongoing gridlock of recrimination.

Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the ethnonationalism of the right. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Let us not be addicted to "the drug of danger," as Athena says in the Oresteia, to "the dream of the enemy that has to be crushed, like a herb, before [we] can smell freedom."

The term "meritocracy" became shorthand for a desirable societal ideal soon after it was coined by the British socialist Sir Michael Young. But Young had originally used it to describe a dystopian future. His 1958 satirical novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, imagines the creation and growth of a national system of intelligence testing, which identifies talented young people from every stratum of society in order to install them in special schools, where they are groomed to make the best use possible of their innate advantages.

In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions, people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man":

Men, after all, are notable not for the equality, but for the inequality, of their endowment. Once all the geniuses are amongst the elite, and all the morons are amongst the workers, what meaning can equality have? What ideal can be upheld except the principle of equal status for equal intelligence? What is the purpose of abolishing inequalities in nurture except to reveal and make more pronounced the inescapable inequalities of Nature?

I thought about this book often in the years before the crack-up of November 2016. In early 2015, the Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam published a book that seemed to tell as history the same story that Young had written as prophecy. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis opens with an evocation of the small town of Port Clinton, Ohio, where Putnam grew up in the 1950s - a "passable embodiment of the American Dream, a place that offered decent opportunity for all the kids in town, whatever their background." Port Clinton was, as Putnam is quick to concede, a nearly all-white town in a pre-feminist and pre-civil-rights America, and it was marked by the unequal distribution of power that spurred those movements into being. Yet it was also a place of high employment, strong unions, widespread homeownership, relative class equality, and generally intact two-parent families. Everyone knew one another by their first names and almost everyone was headed toward a better future; nearly three quarters of all the classmates Putnam surveyed fifty years later had surpassed their parents in both educational attainment and wealth.

When he revisited it in 2013, the town had become a kind of American nightmare. In the 1970s, the industrial base entered a terminal decline, and the town's economy declined with it. Downtown shops closed. Crime, delinquency, and drug use skyrocketed. In 1993, the factory that had offered high-wage blue-collar employment finally shuttered for good. By 2010, the rate of births to unwed mothers had risen to 40 percent. Two years later, the average worker in the county "was paid roughly 16 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than his or her grandfather in the early 1970s."

Young's novel ends with an editorial note informing readers that the fictional author of the text had been killed in a riot that was part of a violent populist insurrection against the meritocracy, an insurrection that the author had been insisting would pose no lasting threat to the social order. Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. "Without intelligence in their heads," he wrote, "the lower classes are never more menacing than a rabble."

We are in the midst of a global insurrection against ruling elites. In the wake of the most destructive of the blows recently delivered, a furious debate arose over whether those who supported Donald Trump deserve empathy or scorn. The answer, of course, is that they deserve scorn for resorting to so depraved and false a solution to their predicament - and empathy for the predicament itself. (And not just because advances in technology are likely to make their predicament far more widely shared.) What is owed to them is not the lachrymose pity reserved for victims (though they have suffered greatly) but rather a practical appreciation of how their antagonism to the policies that determined the course of this campaign - mass immigration and free trade - was a fully political antagonism that was disregarded for decades, to our collective detriment.

A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts.

In lieu of the social-democratic provision of childcare and other services of domestic support, we have built a privatized, ad hoc system of subsidies based on loose border enforcement - in effect, the nation cutting a deal with itself at the expense of the life chances of its native-born working class. In lieu of an industrial policy that would preserve intact the economic foundation of their lives, we rapidly dismantled our industrial base in pursuit of maximal aggregate economic growth, with no concern for the uneven distribution of the harms and the benefits. Some were enriched hugely by these policies: the college-educated bankers, accountants, consultants, technologists, lawyers, economists, and corporate executives who built a supply chain that reached to the countries where we shipped the jobs. Eventually, of course, many of these workers learned that both political parties regarded them as fungible factors of production, readily discarded in favor of a machine or a migrant willing to bunk eight to a room.

Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains.

Even before the ruling elite sent the proletariat off to fight a misbegotten war, even before it wrecked the world economy through heedless lending, even before its politicians rescued those responsible for the crisis while allowing working-class victims of all colors to sink, the working class knew that it had been sacrificed to the interests of those sitting atop the meritocratic ladder. The hostility was never just about differing patterns in taste and consumption. It was also about one class prospering off the suffering of another. We learned this year that political interests that go neglected for decades invariably summon up demagogues who exploit them for their own gain. The demagogues will go on to betray their supporters and do enormous harm to others.

If we are to arrest the global descent into barbarism, we will have to understand the political antagonism at the heart of the meritocratic project and seek a new kind of politics. If we choose to neglect the valid interests of the working class, Trump will prove in retrospect to have been a pale harbinger of even darker nightmares to come.

[Jan 21, 2017] The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations

Interesting thought: there is no intelligence community, there is not CIA, there are different groups within CIA unbrella with different, often conflicting interests and political agenda.
Notable quotes:
"... This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration. ..."
"... In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA. We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations Leading scholar on US-Russia relations addresses the claim being trumpeted by politicians and media on both sides of the political spectrum that Russia is now the "number one" threat to the United States. Given the proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and New York University, tells host of 'The Empire Files', Abby Martin, that the real alarming danger today is "a new, multi-front Cuban missile crisis."

This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, Russia was of course in the person of Putin, repeatedly, almost begging the US to join it in an alliance against terrorism, not only in Syria, but in a kind of global war. I don't know if the global war against terrorism is possible as a separate issue, but Russia wanted to partner with the US. Obama was inclined very briefly in Sep. 2016, but that was killed by the US department of defence when they attacked those Syrian troops.

In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA. We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved.

There are very different views about Washington's policy toward Russia, inside the intelligence community. This may be the single most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations.

The Cuban missile crisis is always said to have been the turning point in our awareness of how dangerous the Cold War was. And that, after we avoided nuclear Armageddon, both sides became wise, and the Cold War continued, but there was a code of contact. Everybody understood where the danger lines were. There was a code of conduct between the Soviet Union and the United States. It doesn't exist today. After the Cuban missile crisis in '62, the two sides began to develop interactive cooperation, student exchanges, scientific exchanges, hot lines, constant talks about nuclear weapons, nuclear reductions, trade agreements. That has come to an end along with communication.

There are now three fronts in the new Cold War that are fought with the possibility of actual war. There's the Baltic region and Poland, where NATO unwisely building up its military presence. There is, of course, Ukraine which could exploded any moment, and, of course, there is Syria, where you got Russian and American aircraft. So, you got a multi-front potential Cuban missile crisis.

Meanwhile, in the United States, this hysterical reaction to alleged - because there is no proof been produced - that somehow Putin put Trump in the White House, this combination of demented public discourse, engrave danger abroad, at least comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.

It's been said that the European Union offered Ukraine a very benign economic relationship. That wasn't a benign agreement, about a thousand pages long. There is a section called 'military security issues' and it's very clear, that any country that signs this so-called eastern partnership agreement with the EU, is obliged to adhere to NATO security policies. By signing that, you become a de facto member of NATO. And this was just more of the attempt by Washington to get Ukraine in the NATO, if not openly, through the back door, and they're still at it.

The decision to expand NATO, all the way, including Ukraine and Georgia, has created a situation in which none of us is safe. And they call that 'national security'?

Full interview: watch-v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

[Jan 21, 2017] The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations

Interesting thought: there is no intelligence community, there is not CIA, there are different groups within CIA umbrella with different, often conflicting interests and political agenda.
Notable quotes:
"... This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration. ..."
"... In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA. We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations Leading scholar on US-Russia relations addresses the claim being trumpeted by politicians and media on both sides of the political spectrum that Russia is now the "number one" threat to the United States. Given the proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and New York University, tells host of 'The Empire Files', Abby Martin, that the real alarming danger today is "a new, multi-front Cuban missile crisis."

This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration.

Meanwhile, Russia was of course in the person of Putin, repeatedly, almost begging the US to join it in an alliance against terrorism, not only in Syria, but in a kind of global war. I don't know if the global war against terrorism is possible as a separate issue, but Russia wanted to partner with the US. Obama was inclined very briefly in Sep. 2016, but that was killed by the US department of defence when they attacked those Syrian troops.

In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA. We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved.

There are very different views about Washington's policy toward Russia, inside the intelligence community. This may be the single most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations.

The Cuban missile crisis is always said to have been the turning point in our awareness of how dangerous the Cold War was. And that, after we avoided nuclear Armageddon, both sides became wise, and the Cold War continued, but there was a code of contact. Everybody understood where the danger lines were. There was a code of conduct between the Soviet Union and the United States. It doesn't exist today. After the Cuban missile crisis in '62, the two sides began to develop interactive cooperation, student exchanges, scientific exchanges, hot lines, constant talks about nuclear weapons, nuclear reductions, trade agreements. That has come to an end along with communication.

There are now three fronts in the new Cold War that are fought with the possibility of actual war. There's the Baltic region and Poland, where NATO unwisely building up its military presence. There is, of course, Ukraine which could exploded any moment, and, of course, there is Syria, where you got Russian and American aircraft. So, you got a multi-front potential Cuban missile crisis.

Meanwhile, in the United States, this hysterical reaction to alleged - because there is no proof been produced - that somehow Putin put Trump in the White House, this combination of demented public discourse, engrave danger abroad, at least comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.

It's been said that the European Union offered Ukraine a very benign economic relationship. That wasn't a benign agreement, about a thousand pages long. There is a section called 'military security issues' and it's very clear, that any country that signs this so-called eastern partnership agreement with the EU, is obliged to adhere to NATO security policies. By signing that, you become a de facto member of NATO. And this was just more of the attempt by Washington to get Ukraine in the NATO, if not openly, through the back door, and they're still at it.

The decision to expand NATO, all the way, including Ukraine and Georgia, has created a situation in which none of us is safe. And they call that 'national security'?

Full interview: watch-v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

[Jan 21, 2017] NYT Says Davos Elite Are Concerned Because Public Doesn't Buy Their Lies Anymore

Jan 20, 2017 | cepr.net

The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify upward redistribution of income. It told readers:

"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....

"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade, China is taking up the mantle....

"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared a 'middle-class crisis.' "

Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other recent trade pacts.

The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.

Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.

The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not likely to help their case much.

Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).

* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/dealbook/world-economic-forum-davos-finance.html

** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

-- Dean Baker Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution of income.

They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated conservatives with the same medicine.

And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the country.

That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.

Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost its effectiveness.

Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.

This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.

Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 07:54 AM

libezkova said in reply to anne...

http://www.unz.com/article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything-on-the-2016-us-election/

== quote ==

The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his article titled, The Structure of Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America."

He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today."

The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA. This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

[Jan 21, 2017] Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a soft coup to block his inauguration

Notable quotes:
"... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
"... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
"... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful transfer of political power. This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me proud to be an American and thankful we had such brilliant founding fathers.

This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain and Canada, where leaders under the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its three branches of government in spite of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.

Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course.

Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria.

This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'

Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations is a multi-billion dollar national industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.

If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused by what he called in his inaugural speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing. The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.

Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.

Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround him, with the possibly exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.

(Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)

[Jan 21, 2017] Assessing Obama labor policy track record

Jan 21, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com
Obama might have done more to bend the tone of Washington than change actual policy, but his tenure is a lesson in what a president can and can't do for working people.

When he took office at the zenith of the financial crisis, Obama's initial moves to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs, including the federal stimulus package and Wall Street bailout, could have been opportunities to reshape the relationship between the state and private sector and to tackle income inequality in the long term. But thanks to bipartisan resistance in Congress, the big banks were never held to account; the stimulus, though a significant social investment, petered out; and no other mass jobs initiatives ever emerged after the "recovery" had sufficiently resuscitated the financial system.

But aspirations toward a New Deal–type stimulus faded fast. The Occupy Wall Street movement's cry for economic justice picked up the momentum and changed the way people view the social dimensions of inequality and the role of protest in civic life. Congress then proved useless in failing to push through even modest investments in infrastructure, restoring funding for basic welfare programs, or making health-care reform truly equitable for working-class people instead of an insurance industry racket.

The squelching of the Employee Free Choice Act , which would have eased the unionization process, further constrained efforts to build workplace democracy. Obama never lifted a finger for the act in the early days of his presidency, when it was still politically possible.

Two parallel failures of Obama's approach toward globalization hurt labor materially and politically. First, the collapse of immigration reform efforts, which only further entrenched a permanent underclass of undocumented workers . Additionally, the perpetuation of the warped neoliberal trade policy that has devastated working-class households who previously enjoyed a modicum of upward mobility.

Trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership revealed Obama's myopic approach to addressing deep destabilization across the workforce - the evaporation of core, decent-paying industries that had supported communities for generations, and the expansion of poverty-wage, unstable, and precarious service jobs.

The administration's reluctance to confront these disruptions provoked a massive backlash against "free trade" and globalization as abandoned workers saw their Democratic representatives allow corporations to drive down wages, undermine labor standards inside and outside US borders, and essentially write the rules of the global economy themselves.

One area where Obama did make meaningful changes was also, sadly, the easiest to roll back.

Through his executive power, he expanded labor protections for tens of thousands of federal contractors, including wage hikes, paid sick leave, and fair-pay rules. The Labor Department extended minimum-wage protections to home-care workers under new administrative guidelines. But those might be rapidly unraveled by conservative lawmakers and Trump, both hell-bent on dismantling Obama's regulatory actions.

Similarly, the Labor Department's overhaul of the eligibility threshold for low-income salaried workers was set to boost the wages of millions nationwide, but are now disintegrating with court challenges and an incoming pro-business administration.

Rulings at the National Labor Relations Board boosted collective-bargaining rights for contractors and graduate student workers , and helped advance organizing efforts for fast-food franchise workers. But these measures could crumble when the new NLRB under Trump veers rightward.

But many major changes in labor policy realized under Obama happened on the state and local level, like the proliferation of paid sick leave laws in states and cities in the past few years. And Occupy's legacy continued in the streets with campaigns like the Fight for 15 , which brought precarious service workers into the national spotlight, and the Chicago Teachers Union , which thwarted the corporate school-reform coalition that Democrats championed.

None of these achievements should be credited to the Obama White House, but they're surrounded by the civic momentum generated with his election, and now may outlast his administration through movements that have learned to radically depart from the liberal centrist elite - an establishment that ultimately crumpled in the election.

That Obama will be succeeded by such an outrageously regressive, racist regime reflects the structural inequalities that no president could begin to dismantle, since they are tied to a neoliberal global economic structure . But in many ways Obama failed culturally to grapple with those injustices, retreating instead into the safer sphere of promoting symbolic equality without material equity. Fighting those inequalities requires not technocratic tinkering in Washington but enlisting local communities through organizing in workplaces, classrooms, and communities.

[Jan 21, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump

Notable quotes:
"... In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'. ..."
"... The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad. ..."
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents. ..."
"... Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
"... Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order. ..."
Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

Regime Change in America

In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.

The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.

Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.

The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.

Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.

Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.

The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.

Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.

The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!

Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état.

CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound "

Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.

From a Scratch to Gangrene

The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.

Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.

Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. http://petras.lahaine.org/

[Jan 21, 2017] Obama promised to reverse the growth of the surveillance state. He did the opposite.

Notable quotes:
"... President Obama will go down in history as the man who helped entrench history's largest and most powerful surveillance state ..."
"... Obama didn't just fall short of progressive hopes - he went in the opposite direction ..."
"... he broke a campaign promise and voted for a bill expanding government surveillance and granting immunity to telecommunications companies who helped Bush spy on Americans. ..."
"... Upon becoming president, the already vast surveillance powers of the United States have expanded . By 2010, the NSA was collecting 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other types of communications. By 2012, XKeyscore - which sweeps up "everything a user typically does on the internet" - was storing as much as forty-one billion records in thirty days. This gargantuan volume of data has the ironic effect of making it harder to detect security threats. ..."
"... The use of secret laws - hidden from public eyes and often related to surveillance activities - shot up under Obama. The administration tried (and failed) to force Apple to insert security flaws in its phones, to give law enforcement a potential "back door" around encryption. ..."
"... But this would not have happened - and the scope of US surveillance would have stayed secret - had it not been for the disclosures by Edward Snowden, whom Obama criticized and refused to pardon in the waning days of his administration, even as he claimed to " welcome " a debate on surveillance. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

President Obama will go down in history as the man who helped entrench history's largest and most powerful surveillance state, providing it with a liberal legitimacy that left it largely immune from criticism during his two terms. As President Trump takes the reins of that surveillance state's power in whatever terrifying ways he chooses, we should remember that it was Obama who paved the way for him.

Obama has often been painted as a disappointing president, one who reached for the stars but ultimately, whether due to Republican obstructionism or the disappointing realities of governing, fell short. In the area of state surveillance, however, Obama didn't just fall short of progressive hopes - he went in the opposite direction.

Obama built his career opposing the Patriot Act and Bush-era secrecy. He made this opposition a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, promising "no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime . . . No more ignoring the law when it is convenient."

The first sign of his waning commitment came three months after a glowing Times op-ed declared him potentially the first civil libertarian president, when he broke a campaign promise and voted for a bill expanding government surveillance and granting immunity to telecommunications companies who helped Bush spy on Americans.

Upon becoming president, the already vast surveillance powers of the United States have expanded . By 2010, the NSA was collecting 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other types of communications. By 2012, XKeyscore - which sweeps up "everything a user typically does on the internet" - was storing as much as forty-one billion records in thirty days. This gargantuan volume of data has the ironic effect of making it harder to detect security threats.

The use of secret laws - hidden from public eyes and often related to surveillance activities - shot up under Obama. The administration tried (and failed) to force Apple to insert security flaws in its phones, to give law enforcement a potential "back door" around encryption.

It extended controversial Patriot Act provisions year after year. Less than a week before Donald Trump, a man he has called "unfit" for office, took power, Obama expanded the NSA's power to share its data with other agencies. Meanwhile, the FBI is paying Best Buy employees to snoop through your computer.

Where there have been privacy wins on Obama's watch, they have largely been inadvertent. The NSA collects a much smaller proportion of Americans' phone records today than it did eleven years ago because cell phone use has exploded. Furthermore, the USA Freedom Act passed in 2015, ending bulk collection of US phone records ( only of phone records, it must be said), something Obama tried to claim as part of his legacy in his farewell speech.

But this would not have happened - and the scope of US surveillance would have stayed secret - had it not been for the disclosures by Edward Snowden, whom Obama criticized and refused to pardon in the waning days of his administration, even as he claimed to " welcome " a debate on surveillance.

All of this happened under a liberal former constitutional law professor. The question must be asked: What will follow under Trump?

-Branko Marcetic

[Jan 21, 2017] http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-says-davos-elite-are-concerned-because-public-doesn-t-buy-their-lies-anymore

Jan 21, 2017 | cepr.net

January 20, 2017

NYT Says Davos Elite Are Concerned Because Public Doesn't Buy Their Lies Anymore

The New York Times reported * that the people at the gathering of the super rich at Davos are concerned because the population of major democracies no longer buy the lies they tell to justify upward redistribution of income. It told readers:

"At cocktail parties where the Champagne flows, financiers have expressed bewilderment over the rise of populist groups that are feeding a backlash against globalization....

"The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade, China is taking up the mantle....

"The religion of the global elite - free trade and open markets - is under attack, and there has been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared a 'middle-class crisis.' "

Of course the Davos elite do not have a religion of free trade. They are entirely happy with every longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which is a main goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other recent trade pacts.

The Davos elite also have no objections to protectionist measures, like the U.S. ban on foreign doctors who have not completed a U.S. residency program. This protectionist barrier adds as much as $100 billion a year (@ $700 per family) to the country's health care bill.

Since these measures redistribute income upward to people like them, the Davos elite is perfectly happy with them. They only object to protectionist measures which are intended to help ordinary workers.

The concern in Davos is that the public in western democracies no longer buys the lie that they are committed to the public good rather than lining their pockets. It is nice that the NYT is apparently trying to assist the elite by asserting that they have an interest in "free trade," but it is not likely to help their case much.

Yeah, I am plugging my book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" ** (it's free).

* https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/business/dealbook/world-economic-forum-davos-finance.html

** http://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf

-- Dean Baker Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 06:33 AM likezkova said in reply to anne... Not only the population of major democracies no longer buy the neoliberal lies they used to tell to justify upward redistribution of income.

They now have the right wing alternative to both "soft" (Clinton) neoliberal party (which used Clinton "they will vote for us anyway tactic since 90th) and "hard" neoliberal party, which treated conservatives with the same medicine.

And that what bother the neoliberal elite most, as those guys can easily get out of control and hand a couple of dozen "masters of the universe" on the lamp posts for all good they did for the country.

That's why intelligence agencies tries this "soft coup" against Trump recently. What they achieved remains to be seen, but probably not a capitulation on the Trump "party" side.

Wedge issues such as same sex marriage, which was used a smoke screen for a decade or so lost its effectiveness.

Neoliberal MSM are now viewed as professional liars and presstitutes, which they always were.

This is probably the very easy signs of the systemic crisis of neoliberalism, plain and simple.

Reply Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 07:54 AM

libezkova said in reply to anne...

The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his article titled, The Structure of Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America."

He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today."

The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA. This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

[Jan 21, 2017] Theres class warfare, all right, but its my class, the rich class, thats making war, and were winning

Notable quotes:
"... In the face of the enormous political chasm between the 99 percent and the 1 percent, a strategy of elite-led, bipartisan deal-cutting premised on calls for "shared sacrifice" leaves this grossly inequitable economic and political fabric intact. As such, the 99 percent are caught in the vise of small-bore policies from their supposed friends and allies while their opponents encircle them with scorched-earth politics. ..."
"... The Obama administration and much of the leadership of the Democratic Party took extreme care not to upset these basic interests. As a consequence, they squandered an exceptional political opportunity. The financial crisis and the Great Recession were one of those moments when members of the business sector were "stripped naked as leaders and strategists," in the words of Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. The Great Depression was another. ..."
"... As he put the House of Morgan and other bankers on trial, Ferdinand Pecora, chief counsel of the Senate Banking Committee, helped popularize during the age of Al Capone a term not heard today: the "bankster." These hearings compelled Roosevelt to support stricter financial regulation than he might have otherwise. ..."
"... One cannot talk about crime in the streets today without talking about crime in the suites. ..."
"... The political intransigence lavishly on display in the Republican Party - which repeatedly brought Congress to a caustic standstill - obscured how a major segment of the Democratic Party was loath to mount any major challenge to the entrenched financial and political interests that have captured American politics today. ..."
"... For all the bluster about political polarization, the debate over what to do about the economy, the social safety net, and financial regulation - like the elite discussions over what to do about mass incarceration - oscillated within a very narrow range defined by neoliberalism for much of Obama's tenure. Indeed, the president repeatedly bragged that the federal budget for discretionary spending on domestic programs had shrunk under his watch to the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

Vast and growing economic inequalities rooted in vast and growing political inequalities are the preeminent problem facing the United States today. They are the touchstone of many of the major issues that vex the country - from mass incarceration to mass underemployment to climate change to the economic recovery of Wall Street but not Main Street and Martin Luther King Street.

In the face of the enormous political chasm between the 99 percent and the 1 percent, a strategy of elite-led, bipartisan deal-cutting premised on calls for "shared sacrifice" leaves this grossly inequitable economic and political fabric intact. As such, the 99 percent are caught in the vise of small-bore policies from their supposed friends and allies while their opponents encircle them with scorched-earth politics.

The Obama administration and much of the leadership of the Democratic Party took extreme care not to upset these basic interests. As a consequence, they squandered an exceptional political opportunity. The financial crisis and the Great Recession were one of those moments when members of the business sector were "stripped naked as leaders and strategists," in the words of Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. The Great Depression was another.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into office, the Hoover administration was thoroughly discredited, as was the business sector. FDR recognized that the country was ready for a clean break with the past, and symbolically and substantively cultivated that sentiment. The break did not come from FDR alone. Massive numbers of Americans mobilized in unions, women's organizations, veterans' groups, senior citizen associations, and civil right groups to ensure that the country switched course.

During the Depression, President Roosevelt was forced to broaden the public understanding of crime to include corporate crime. The Senate's riveting Pecora hearings during the waning days of the Hoover administration and the start of the Roosevelt presidency turned a scorching public spotlight on the malfeasance of the corporate sector and its complicity in sparking the Depression.

As he put the House of Morgan and other bankers on trial, Ferdinand Pecora, chief counsel of the Senate Banking Committee, helped popularize during the age of Al Capone a term not heard today: the "bankster." These hearings compelled Roosevelt to support stricter financial regulation than he might have otherwise.

One cannot talk about crime in the streets today without talking about crime in the suites. Over the past four decades, the public obsession with getting tougher on street crime coincided with the retreat of the state in regulating corporate malfeasance - everything from hedge funds to credit default swaps to workplace safety. Keeping the focus on street crime was a convenient strategy to shift public attention and resources from crime in the suites to crime in the streets.

As billionaire financier Warren Buffet quipped in 2006, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." President Obama's persistent calls during his first term for a politics that rose above politics and championed "shared sacrifice" denied this reality and demobilized the public. It thwarted the consolidation of a compelling alternative political vision on which new coalitions and movements could be forged to challenge fundamental inequalities, including mass imprisonment and the growing tentacles of the carceral state.

The political intransigence lavishly on display in the Republican Party - which repeatedly brought Congress to a caustic standstill - obscured how a major segment of the Democratic Party was loath to mount any major challenge to the entrenched financial and political interests that have captured American politics today.

For all the bluster about political polarization, the debate over what to do about the economy, the social safety net, and financial regulation - like the elite discussions over what to do about mass incarceration - oscillated within a very narrow range defined by neoliberalism for much of Obama's tenure. Indeed, the president repeatedly bragged that the federal budget for discretionary spending on domestic programs had shrunk under his watch to the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

[Jan 21, 2017] The Trump Speech That No One Heard

Notable quotes:
"... Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic: ..."
"... "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will." ..."
"... This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda? ..."
"... But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA. ..."
"... This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com . ..."
Jan 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

Donald Trump wants to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy. The President-elect wants to abandon the destabilizing wars and regime change operations that have characterized US policy in the past and work collaboratively with countries like Russia that have a mutual interest in fighting terrorism and establishing regional security. Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic:

"We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."

Trump's approach to foreign policy may seem commendable given the disastrous results in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, but it is also a dramatic departure from the last 70 years of activity during which time the United States has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow 57 foreign governments. (According to author William Blum) This is why the political class and their wealthy constituents are so worried about Trump, it's because they don't want the new president mucking-around in a process he doesn't understand, a process that has reshaped the world in a way that clearly benefits US mega-corporations while reinforcing Washington's iron grip on global power. The bottom line is that "violence works" and any deviation from the present policy represents a direct threat to the people whose continued power and prosperity depend on that violence.

This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda?

It doesn't, which is why they'd rather the public remain in the dark about what Trump actually said.

But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA.

This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. The CIA's involvement in the coups in Ukraine and Honduras, as well as the agency's funding, arming and training of Sunni militants in Libya and Syria, attest to the fact that Brennan does not see peace and reconciliation as compatible with US foreign policy objectives. Like his elitist paymasters, Brennan is committed to perpetual war, regime change, and mass annihilation. Trump offers some relief from this 70 year-long nightmare policy. Check out this quote from Vice President-elect, Mike Pence on FOX News Sunday:

"I think the president elect has made it very clear that we have a terrible relationship with Russia right now. And that's not all our own doing, but really is a failure of American diplomacy in successive administrations. And what the president elect has determined to do is to explore the possibility of better relations. We have a common enemy in ISIS, and the ability to work with Russia to confront, hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source represents an enormously important priority of this incoming administration. But what the American people like about Donald Trump is that he's someone who can sit down, roll his sleeves up and make a deal. And what you're hearing in his reflections whether it be with Russia, or China or other countries in the world, is that we're going to reengage. We're going to put America first, we're going to reengage in a way that advances America's interests in the world and that advances peace."

Vice President-elect Mike Pence, FOX News Sunday

"Better relations" with Russia?

Not on your life. US elites and their think tank lackeys would never allow it, not in a million years. Even now, after six years of death and destruction in Syria, elites at the Council on Foreign Relations are still resolved to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (Re: "Aleppo's Sobering Lessons," Project Syndicate, by Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations) The same is true at the Brookings Institute where chief strategist Michael O' Hanlon leads the charge for splitting up the battered country so Washington can control vital pipeline corridors, establish military bases in the east, and eliminate a potential threat to Israeli expansion. Here's a clip from a recent piece by O' Hanlon that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The author admits that the US goal is to splinter to country into multiple parts transforming it into a failed state:

"To achieve peace, Syria will need self-governance within a number of autonomous zones. One option is a confederal system by which the whole country is divided into such zones. A less desirable but minimally acceptable alternative could be several autonomous zones within an otherwise still-centralized state-similar to how Iraqi Kurdistan has functioned for a quarter-century .

Many Syrians will not like the idea of a confederal nation, or even of a central government controlling half the country with the other half divided into three or four autonomous zones. But the broad vision should be developed soon." (Wall Street Journal)

"Autonomous zones" in a "confederal system" is a sobriquet for a broken, Balkanized failed state run by tribal elders, disparate warlords and bloodthirsty jihadists. O' Hanlon's vision for Syria is a savage dysfunctional dystopia run by homicidal fanatics who rule with an iron fist. Is it any wonder why the Syrian people have fought tooth and nail to fend off the terrorist onslaught?

The United States is entirely responsible for the bloody decimation of Syria. It is absurd to think that either the Saudis, the Qataris or the Turks would have launched a war on a strategically-critical nation like Syria without a green light from Washington. The conflict is just the latest hotspot in Washington's 15 year-long war of terror. The ultimate goal is to remove all secular Arab leaders who may pose a threat to US imperial ambitions, open up the region to US-dominated extractive industries, and foment enough extremism to legitimize a permanent military presence.

Russia's intervention into the Syrian conflict in September 2015, has cast doubt on Washington's ability to prevail in the six year-long war. The election of Donald Trump has further complicated matters by affecting a seismic shift in policy that could end the fighting and lead to improved relations between the US and Russia. Naturally, that is not in the interests of the vicious neocons or their liberal interventionist counterparts who see the proxy war in Syria as a pivotal part of their plan to clip Russia's wings, discredit Putin in the eyes of the international community, and lay the groundwork for regime change in Moscow. Washington's ultimate plan for Russia hews closely to that of Zbigniew Brzezinski who– in an titled "A Geostrategy for Eurasia"– had this to say:

"Given (Russia's) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia - composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic - would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization." (Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997)

Nice, eh? In other words, Washington's plan for Russia is no different than its plan for Syria. Both countries will be chopped up into smaller bite-size chunks eliminating the possibility of a strong nationalist government rising up and resisting Washington's relentless exploitation and repression. It's divide and conquer writ large.

"A loosely confederated Russia" also fits perfectly with Washington's top priority to spread military bases across Asia, control crucial energy supplies, open up financial markets, impose Washington's neoliberal economic policies, and maintain a stranglehold on China's explosive growth. It's the Great Game all over again, and Washington is "In it to win it."

Here's an excerpt from a speech Hillary Clinton gave in 2011 titled "America's Pacific Century". The speech underscores the importance that elites attach to the "rebalancing" plan contained in the term "pivot to Asia". The strategy relies on the opening up of new markets to US corporations and Wall Street, controlling critical resources, and "forging a broad-based military presence" across the continent. Washington intends to be the main player in the world's most prosperous region. Here's Clinton:

"The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action . One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment - diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise - in the Asia-Pacific region

Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia."

("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

Onward, to Asia, the next great US battlefield! The killing never ends.

As we noted earlier, the pivot to Asia is Washington's top priority. Clinton merely confirms what geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out in his 1997 magnum opus The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Here's a short excerpt from the book:

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. .About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible. The State Department's coup in Kiev as well as aggressive efforts to restrict the flow of Russian gas to the EU via Nord Stream and South Stream, have temporarily succeeded in undermining Moscow's plan for accelerated economic integration. Had Hillary won the election, the US would have stepped up its provocations, its sanctions, its military buildup on Russia's borders, its gas war, its attacks on Russia's markets and currency, and its proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine. But now that Trump has been thrown into the mix, anything is possible. Even a fundamental change in the policy.

The question is whether the deep state powerbrokers –who have already launched a number of attacks on Trump in the media - will throw in the towel and allow Trump to develop his own independent foreign policy or take steps to have him removed from office.

Early indications suggest that a coup is already underway.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com .

Diogenes , January 19, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 200

Trump to date has been "all talk and no action" and as we know "actions speak louder than words".
The voters who put their trust in Trump rather than Hillary now expect actions and Trump to deliver on his election "plank".
Needless to say politicians tend to "talk the walk" but not "walk the walk". So unless he delivers he is going to be another big disappointment for his supporters. I and many other cynics have maintained he is not going to deliver.
But, what do I know? However the American Establishment probably knows a lot more than me and if they are worried about Trump and want him out of power then they feel threatened by him and his supporters may have really voted for a change that challenges the status quo.
A purge of the Neo -liberal Globalist Establishment is long over due and much to be desired BUT we don't know who and what will replace them. Trump may be an "existential threat" to the malevolent swamp creatures that dwell in Washington but he might also be a threat to the whole country. We hope for a benevolent outcome; "Time will tell".

Beckow , January 19, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT • 200

But none of it has worked. Brzezinski, or whoever, can write books, can dream big, can play with maps after dinner at Georgetown parties – but it is has not worked. The 'divide and conquer' ended up dividing the world more, and conquering almost nothing. It is a mess, and the coming consequences were going to be dire.

Results matter. Trump is not just an emotional reaction to the crazy globalist neocon-liberal idiocy, he is also a reaction to failure. If Clinton took over and doubled down on the same policies (she was going to), there simply would be a lot more failure. And there is no way to dress up failures as 'good for us'. Neo-cons/liberals have had everything on their side – power, academia, media, all institutions – except results.

Trump might fail, or he might succeed, but by coming in at this time, he is in effect saving the failing policies – they don't have to answer for the obvious and accelerating failures that these interventions have caused. The authors will avoid consequences and will very quickly shift into 'we were betrayed', or 'if we just had 10 more years', the usual escapist nonsense that failed ideologues always use. (The communist ideologues still claim that the problem was that 'they should had tried harder, had 'purer' communism', blabla .and same is true about other failed ideologies).

And they will be back. Whether in 'a year or two' as Kerry just said at Davos, or in 2020, 2024, they will be back. This mental state is incurable. (But if we get a few years break, well, let's be thankful for that.)

TG , January 19, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT • 200

An interesting and well-reasoned post. Indeed, it's kind of shocking when you think about it just how much our government is doing running around the world messing in the affairs of nations that really shouldn't be our concern

About whether Trump means what he said during the campaign, well yes, there is always the danger that he will 'pull an Obama' and stab his constituents in the back – talk is cheap. And yet, if that were the case then, as with Obama, we would expect the elites to make nice with him. Instead the elites are if anything ramping up their attacks.

Now the enemy of my enemy is not always a friend – Trump could yet be a disaster. But the war that the deep state is waging on him is perhaps not a bad sign.

And for those who find his tweets repellent, well, that's the only mechanism he has to avoid letting the corporate press completely shut him out and control the dialog. Trump's genius (or luck) is that by being outrageous he has, unlike Nader or Perot or Dean etc., been unable to be silenced by the corporate press. Although in the long run it can't be a sustainable system I would say that breaking up the big corporate industrial/press cartels should be a prime aim. No more news outlets owned by (for example) tech titans with a zillion dollars in CIA contracts and numerous other non-press business interests, you get the idea.

Robert Magill , January 20, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible.

Too late. In December the last remaining Sharia objections to trade in gold were resolved. One billion plus Muslims can now bypass paper money at will and trade in gold. (Gaddafi attempted to do that in Africa and it cost him his life) China has begun to purchase oil with gold all over the mideast. Bye bye petro dollars. Hello breadlines in the former empire.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

alexander , January 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT • 300

Mike,

It is well worth considering the possibility that were our perpetual war making to finally end, our "deep state neocon warmongers " might find themselves on the receiving end of a very robust "reckoning" for the titanic criminal catastrophes they have inculcated.

Please tell me where is it written that they shouldn't be ?

The prodigious assault to disinherit President Trump may well reflect not only their contempt at the thought he might be ending their "evil" wars, but the very real fear in their hearts, they may be held to account, for starting them in the first place.

One cannot overstate the level of absolute impunity our Neocons have enjoyed over the last decade, for committing some of the most horrific crimes the world has seen, since WWII.

Nor can one discount their imperial need of a win for Queen Hillary as being, first and foremost, a lock on that very impunity.

Her loss at the ballot box had very little to do with the voters rejection of her projected veneer of "progressive " values, but a frank realization by the electorate that Ms. Clinton was nothing more than a belligerent neocon warmonger in a phony "liberal" pantsuit.

This "unraveling" has left them all twisting in the wind.

How could it not ?

After all, Donald Trump, is a billionaire oligarch who not only wants "peace", but has been highly articulate and cuttingly accurate as to how (and why) our wars have been total disasters.

This presents quite an unsettling conundrum for all the back room billionaire oligarchs who have always been able to buy their wars as well as the Presidents ( and the Press ) willing to start them.

The fact they might, now, find themselves out of their hegemonic "drivers seat" .and in the criminals "hot seat", as targets for "bone-crushing" war crimes tribunals, . could have them all frantically climbing the walls.

Anonymous , January 20, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT • 100

Well, even if he does a little of what he promised – such as deport those illegals that have a criminal record – that alone will be good. If he could also do something for the Millennials to be able to move out of their parents' homes, that would be good too.

[Jan 21, 2017] I seriously question the assumption of FOREX adjustments perfectly offsetting policy changes such that the balance of trade remains unchanged

Notable quotes:
"... I seriously question the assumption of FOREX adjustments perfectly offsetting policy changes such that the balance of trade remains unchanged. It seems like an article of faith that things work this way, based on logic, intelligence, and economic analysis based on various models of how the world works. ..."
"... Do economists have solid models that accurately predict the movement of FOREX rates in the first place? I mean, all else being equal, and given no policy changes at all, can economists accurately forecast the exchange rates between, say, Canada and the US over the next 10 years? And, if so, why do these economists have to work for a living? Shouldn't they be enormously wealthy people by now if they possess this level of predictive capabilities? ..."
"... My personal thinking on the matter is to take a more humble approach. Given some solid reasons to believe the proposed border adjustment tax will increase the value of the dollar, but lacking a way to accurately predict FOREX, I would guess that exchange rates would adjust to cancel out only half the policy change. I'll assume trade flows adjust a bit and FOREX rates adjust a bit. And since it is just a guess, I'd be quite cautious in drawing any strong conclusions. ..."
Jan 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

pgl, Friday, January 20, 2017 at 01:37 AM

Team Trump needs to listen to Miles Kimball:

"border adjustability. In the eurozone, where there is a fixed exchange rate of 1 between the member countries, relying more heavily on a value-added tax-for which international rules allow taxing imports while exempting exports from the tax-and less on other taxes, is understood as a way to get the same effect as devaluing to an exchange rate that makes foreign goods more expensive to people in a country and domestic goods cheaper to foreigners. But in a floating exchange rate setup as the US has, most of the effects of border adjustment can be canceled out by an explicit appreciation in the dollar that cancels out the implicit devaluation from the tax shift. And indeed, such an appreciation of the dollar is exactly what one should expect."

The architect of this Destination Based Cash Flow Tax with "Border Adjustments" (is that like sprinkles on top) is Alan Auerbach and even he admits this. Miles moves onto something else I have been saying:

"A way to push down the value of the dollar and stimulate net exports for a much longer time is to increase saving rates in the US As greater saving pushed down US rates of return, some of that extra saving would wind up in foreign assets, putting extra US dollars in the hands of folks abroad, so they would have US dollars to buy US goods. This effect can be enhanced if the regulations for automatic enrollment are favorable to a substantial portion (say 30%) of the default investment option being in foreign assets. Note that an increase in US saving would tend to push down the natural interest rate, and so needs to be accompanied by the elimination of the zero lower bound in order to avoid making it hard for monetary policy to respond to recessions."

OK – it might not be so easy to lower the natural rate now but back in 1981, real interest rates soared as the Reagan tax cuts lowered national savings. This led to a massive dollar appreciation and a large drop in net exports.

Ed Brown -> pgl... , January 20, 2017 at 07:31 AM
I seriously question the assumption of FOREX adjustments perfectly offsetting policy changes such that the balance of trade remains unchanged. It seems like an article of faith that things work this way, based on logic, intelligence, and economic analysis based on various models of how the world works.

But while this view seems to be held by intelligent people with far more economic education that I will ever have, I am wondering if there is any empirical evidence that supports this reasoning? I am sceptical.

Do economists have solid models that accurately predict the movement of FOREX rates in the first place? I mean, all else being equal, and given no policy changes at all, can economists accurately forecast the exchange rates between, say, Canada and the US over the next 10 years? And, if so, why do these economists have to work for a living? Shouldn't they be enormously wealthy people by now if they possess this level of predictive capabilities?

My personal thinking on the matter is to take a more humble approach. Given some solid reasons to believe the proposed border adjustment tax will increase the value of the dollar, but lacking a way to accurately predict FOREX, I would guess that exchange rates would adjust to cancel out only half the policy change. I'll assume trade flows adjust a bit and FOREX rates adjust a bit. And since it is just a guess, I'd be quite cautious in drawing any strong conclusions.

I welcome comments that would help educate me on this subject. Best wishes to all.

Peter K. -> Ed Brown... , January 20, 2017 at 07:46 AM
As I understand it Peter Dorman agrees with you here:

http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/12/paul-krugman-on-protectionism-and-trade.html

As does economics superstar Dean Baker.

PGL replied to Dorman twice, but Dorman ignored him.

JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 08:17 AM
I love PK's summary: ".... trade deficits are always a temporary phenomenon, to be followed eventually by surpluses, and vice versa."

After 30 years of trade deficits, I wonder about PK's definition of temporary...

Oh well, in the long run, we're all dead...and the trade deficit will swing to a surplus...

Ed Brown -> JohnH... , January 20, 2017 at 08:28 AM
:-)
Old Opossum's Practical Cat -> Ed Brown... , January 20, 2017 at 08:39 AM
As The Clock Ticks Down

Stand by your data
"
~~Country & Western Song~

Before the opportunity-window slams shut, harvest your data from the market! You need to record a baseline from the last moments of the O'Bummer World. Sure!

You will wish him back, but that is beside the point. We are scientists not wishers.

I wish you
well
!

Ed Brown -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 08:26 AM
Hello. Thank you for this link. I found this comment by Peter Dornman to be interesting: "And also, yes, any theory that implies a known relationship between macro variables and forex rates is *very* counter-empirical."

If his comment is correct, it makes me wonder about the reliability of Miles Kimball's analysis.

There are certain types of problems we just can't reliably analyze, as they are too complicated, or the underlying physics is subject to extreme sensitivity to accuracy of the inputs (chaos theory, basically). For instance, our ability to make meaningful forecasts of the weather is limited to a few days. Maybe FOREX predictions are like that? If so, we should be cautious about making any strong statements about FOREX adjustments precisely offsetting policy changes.

I mean, doesn't it seem like hubris when you can't predict what a variable will do given no changes to current conditions, but you decide that you can predict *precisely* what it will do if we make changes to current conditions?

JohnH -> Ed Brown... , January 20, 2017 at 07:54 AM
"Do economists have solid models that accurately predict the movement of FOREX rates in the first place?"

Meese-Rogoff showed that exchange rates are disconnected from fundamentals. It's called the 'foreign exchange puzzle.'

Yet pgl keeps insisting on an 'if x then y' approach to most problems. His key variable is interest rates, which are at the root of most every change in pglian universe.

I'm actually surprised that he departs from his rate-centric universe to suggest that Trump might be responsible for something like the fall of the peso, though he stridently rejects the idea that Trump's bully pulpit might shame American companies into keeping more jobs at home.

JohnH -> JohnH... , January 20, 2017 at 07:58 AM
Meese-Rogoff found that f-x rates are a random walk.